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 VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Ireland position is:
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.
and 2. There must be an agreement.

Nearly, but not quite.

Our position is to point out that if there is no agreement, then the UK will probably be in breach of the GFA.

This is a treaty to which Ireland and the UK are party, the EU is not.

So when you say that Ireland has additional requirements to the EU, you are correct. Because the UK has signed agreements with Ireland outside of the EU, but which nonetheless may be breached by the UK's withdrawal.

But your insinuation that Ireland has created this problem, is not correct. The UK has created this problem, it is up to the UK to provide solutions.

[Deleted User]

What are the legal repercussions of breaking the GFA?

Professor Moriarty

Cake of Tremendous Power wrote: »

What are the legal repercussions of breaking the GFA?

It's the illegal repercussions I'd worry about.

tuxy

Tusk looks fed up beyond belief. Junker is warmer but again believes he thinks the HOC is misunderstanding the deal. Last night he had indicated that he thinks many MP have not even read it and they should take the time to do so.

[Deleted User]

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's the illegal repercussions I'd worry about.

Ain't that the truth

Professor Moriarty

tuxy wrote: »

Tusk looks fed up beyond belief. Junker is warmer but again believes he thinks the HOC is misunderstanding the deal. Last night he had indicated that he thinks many MP have not even read it and they should take the time to do so.

This is very humiliating for Britain and May. She is being left to twist in the wind. And that's with the EU maintaining cool heads. If the heart ruled the head, she would have been told to foxtrot oscar.

seamus

Cake of Tremendous Power wrote: »

What are the legal repercussions of breaking the GFA?

In essence, the basis of virtually all treaties is compromise - in that all parties cease an activity or relinquish control over something in return for the other parties doing the same.

When one party violates a treaty (knowingly), the other parties are in effect free to declare the treaty void and resume the activity they previously shunned.

That's the simplified version. In practical terms, everyone goes back to the table with independent arbitration to try and resolve the breach and restore the treaty.

The GFA is especially complicated, not least because it is between 2 sovereign states AND 2 paramilitary organisations who may not be willing to wait before resuming their activities. But also because the GFA is codified in the constitutions of both RoI and the UK.

The is where the chain of causality gets blurry and freaky. If a no-deal Brexit is found to be by default in breach of the GFA, this may in turn mean that the UK is in breach of its own constitution. Which may mean that a no-deal Brexit is unconstitutional. Which of course, would only be declared several years after the fact when the UK has already left.

Did anyone mention that the EU is more complicated than "Leave or Remain", yet?

Tell me how

This is the most rollercoaster of a political experience I have yet experienced and it is not over yet.

Each of these are key events on their own and they have all happened as a result of the idea of Brexit within the last 2.5 years.

Holding an EU referendum with no details of what the impact would be and allowing for a fractional majority to dictate direction
Vote leave winning the referendum
Prime Minister who called the referendum resigns
Opposition Leader faces challenge over their position on Brexit. (They win)
Front Runner for leader of conservative party (and therefore PM) fails to run
New Prime Minister elected to deliver Brexit had campaigned to remain
Front Runner for leader of conservative party who failed to run appointed as Foreign Secretary
Election Called to strengthen Government majority
Government is returned but with reduced majority forcing C&S with DUP
Article 50 is invoked before any strategy is developed on how to proceed
Legal agreement in relation to NI accepted by UK government
UK parliament passes legislation overriding legal agreement in relation to NI
UK creates red lines which they say have to be met or they will leave without a deal stating No Deal is better than a Bad Deal
Brexit Minister embarasses himself when discussing impacts on industry sectors before a select committee
PM issues ultimatum to her cabinet ministers to support her or get a taxi home from Chequers
Brexit Minister and Foreign Secretary resign. New Brexit Minister appointed
Leave campaign found to have violated campaign funding rules and referred to police for investigation
Prominent Leave campaigners found to have dubious links between Leave Campaign, Russia, Artificial Intelligence Company and Donald Trump
DUP drive to manipulate deal to strengthen/protect Union even though majority of their constituents prefer closer links to EU
Hard Brexiteers cabal try to remove PM but fail to get 48 letters to force a vote
A deal is produced
Brexit minister resigns. New Brexit Minister appointed
Government found in contempt of parliament for the first time in History and forced to reveal AG advice which it had received
House of Commons unites (sort of) in hatred of the deal
Anarchy and revolt amongst the opposition evidenced by the removal of the Royal Mace
Hard Brexiteers cabal get their moment in the spotlight and fail to remove PM thus protecting her (from internal attacks) for a year
Opposition is so inept that even with the disintegration of the government party, they have no confidence that they would win a General election and so do nothing.
EU consistently and resoundingly rebuffs pleas from PM to make changes to help her get a deal passed.
Christmas approaches likely meaning at least a week of inactivity within the political sphere while the media ratchets up the hyperbole even more.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

I honestly don't know at this stage. But the solutions being offered on this forum all involve another country, the UK, doing something to our liking.

The real issue for Irish people is: are you willing to sell out the border for at an economic impact of approx. 5% - or 10 months - of economic growth.

There is uncertainty on either side of that- the UK is likely -but not certainly- to cave either before or after a no deal brexit. In any case, the UK population certainly do not care about NI.

Mr.Nice Guy

quokula wrote: »

It’s worth noting that Corbyn campaigned for Remain, votes Remain, has since advocated the entire UK staying in the customs union (avoiding the need for a backstop) and made some somewhat fuzzy commitments to a single market relationship that would clearly prioritise not harming the economy over the ideological red lines the tories have had - this would pretty much amount to Norway in practice once Labour got to the negotiating table, which is far better than what the Tories are driving for.

He’s not advocating a second referendum yet because he’s rather get in power first, a second referendum puts paid to an election before 2022. But he’s made it pretty clear that if they run out of other options they will campaign for a second referendum.

The idea that he’s got anything in common with the likes of ERG on Brexit is crazy.

Corbyn has been of the Tony Benn eurosceptic wing of Labour for decades. To say he campaigned for Remain is being very generous indeed given his level of involvement at the time. The reason he doesn't advocate a second referendum is because he doesn't want one. He's spent his political life as an opponent of the EU and there's no sign of a Road to Damascus conversion. Quite the opposite. He has offered no support whatsoever for the backstop and has even garnered praise from the DUP for his behaviour the last few weeks. Even his sister party in NI the SDLP are exasperated with him:

https://twitter.com/jonclint1/status/1073260160456495107

Labour remainers like Starmer had to battle to get the Labour party to even consider the option of a second referendum. It was not something he was enthuasiastic about whatsoever.

Corbyn could have been a friend to Ireland in this process by throwing his support behind the backstop, but in a recent interview with Darren McCaffrey he showed he is no ally...

https://twitter.com/euronews/status/1071098387452301313

Hurrache

tuxy wrote: »

he thinks the HOC is misunderstanding the deal. Last night he had indicated that he thinks many MP have not even read it and they should take the time to do so.

It has to be one of two things, they either haven't read it, or are purposely misrepresenting it. Everyone in Ireland, probably Europe, with an interest in Brexit understands it, how the hell can anyone in the HOC not?

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/1073590413821386753
Massive news out of Scotland.

DOCARCH

Tell me how wrote: »

This is the most rollercoaster of a political experience I have yet experienced and it is not over yet.

Each of these are key events on their own and they have all happened as a result of the idea of Brexit within the last 2.5 years.

I'd say Putin is thinking to himself, that was money well spent! :P

Tell me how

DOCARCH wrote: »

I'd say Putin is thinking to himself, that was money well spent! :P

I'd say he's looking at the US and the UK and thinking he had no idea it would be this easy.

They've probably let off loads of people in the Kremlin because each project was much shorter in duration than anticipated.

Itssoeasy

I wish that the media in Britain would stop letting those brexiter MPs and members of the public they have on misrepresent what the backstop is and when it supposedly comes into effect. The backstop is a scenario that hopefully will never be used, but I think it's right there is a protection in the event the U.K. and EU can't reach an agreement during the transition period. I certainly don't want a hard border(or any type of border infrastructure) back on this island.

The British people to a point I can understand them not being up to date of the border in Ireland. I can't give a pass to the political version of the uncontaced tribe in the news recently, the DUP. They know damn well that brexit won't change the position of the north in the U.K, as that can ONLY change by a vote on the island of Ireland.

hill16bhoy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/1073590413821386753
Massive news out of Scotland.

Referendum on, referendum off.

Interim Scotch Tory leader:

https://twitter.com/Carlaw4Eastwood/status/1073597709481844736

Bit cynical

seamus wrote: »

Nearly, but not quite.

Our position is to point out that if there is no agreement, then the UK will probably be in breach of the GFA.

This is a treaty to which Ireland and the UK are party, the EU is not.

So when you say that Ireland has additional requirements to the EU, you are correct. Because the UK has signed agreements with Ireland outside of the EU, but which nonetheless may be breached by the UK's withdrawal.

But your insinuation that Ireland has created this problem, is not correct. The UK has created this problem, it is up to the UK to provide solutions.

Dealing with your last point first: the UK leaving does cause problems for Ireland. But Ireland's actions in response can make matters better or worse for Ireland. Therefore examination of Irelands actions is always appropriate.

On the GFA, I don't think Ireland has pointed out officially that the UK would be legally in breach of the agreement if the EU and UK fail to reach agreement and a hard border is introduced as a result. I am open to correction on that. Personally I don't personally think the UK woudl be in breach of the GFA though a hard border is something to be avoided regardless. It may put the GFA under strain but that is not the same as the UK (or Ireland) being legally in breach of it.

Imreoir2

CelticRambler wrote: »

Speaking of Project Fear/Fact, from Bloomberg today ...

I am essentially illiterate when it comes to the stock market. Does anyone know what kind of impact a capital flight of this type would have on the wider economey or on the national finances?

DOCARCH

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I wish that the media in Britain would stop letting those brexiter MPs and members of the public they have on misrepresent what the backstop is and when it supposedly comes into effect.

I think the Brexiteers and DUP have done an amazing job in spinning/hyping the backstop as the mother of all evils, in the last couple of weeks....and people/media/other MPs seem to be swallowing it!

The backstop is nothing new/has been around for 12 months.

TM made a huge error of judgement in trying to conceal the advice of the AG to cabinet, which has been around for a while, and then having to release it, by force, after the WA was complete.

Had the advice of the AG been released sometime ago, prior to the completion of the WA, TM may not in the s**tstorm she is in now.

seamus

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I am essentially illiterate when it comes to the stock market. Does anyone know what kind of impact a capital flight of this type would have on the wider economey or on the national finances?

Hard to say. To a certain extent the state of the stock market is used as a bellweather for the state of the economy, rather than being an actual contributor to the economy in itself. That is, if the economy is doing well, stock prices go up. If it's doing poorly, stock prices go down.

It's not always though an economic indicator. What it really does is measure profit performance. Profits up == stock up. It is possible for your economy to be stagnating, but stock prices are going up because companies are shedding staff right, left and centre, and cutting wages, and therefore making record profits.

The relationship doesn't work in reverse - stock prices going up doesn't make the economy any better, likewise prices going down doesn't make the economy perform worse. The money invested stocks is effectively just spare cash that rich people have lying around. When they move it around the place, it doesn't add or remove anything from the economy.

Not directly anyway. But if it's considered a bellweather of economic state, then it follows that a drop in stock prices will make people more twitchy about investing in the economy - "the stock market thinks the economy is in trouble, so I should avoid building a new supermarket for now".

There is also the issue of who is investing in stocks and capitalising on returns. If governments, banks and pension providers have money invested in shares, then dropping stock prices hurts their returns and in turn hurts the people who are dependent on those funds.

Laois_Man

tuxy wrote: »

Tusk looks fed up beyond belief.

Angela Merkel too, who said:

"The 27 member states have given assurances. They are contained in the conclusions of yesterday evening.

"That is our position, that is what we have put on the table. And now we expect Great Britain to respond."

Interesting conversation about a hard border being in conflict with the UK's own constitution. I have no doubt Varadkar threw this at May in yesterdays lengthy meeting, probably not for the first time - but he has to keep his powder dry on it and hope he never has to say it publically. If you think Anglo-Irish relations have soured now, you ain't seen nothing yet, compared to what will happen if/when the Irish Government has to start making these points.

Bit cynical

joe40 wrote: »

Not sure I understand. How can Ireland insist on an agreement. If the Uk have not signed up to a WA by 29th March or postponed the exit then there will be no agreement. The Irish government can't stop that.

It seems to me that a "time limited backstop" would placate the Tories. They don't seem to realise this is a contradiction in terms.
A time limited guarantee is not a guarantee

Of course we can't insist on an agreement. But an agreement is much more essential to us than the EU as a whole which can live without one. Therein, I would argue, lies the difference between Ireland's position and the EU's. The EU can insist on an time-unlimited backstop knowing full well that no national parliament would ever agree with it thereby resulting in no deal, whereas Ireland would probably modify its demands given the chance at that point.

Geuze

A quick question on the backstop.

As it is part of the WA, then if the WA is not passed in the UK parliament, and instead Brexit occurs without a WA, then is the backstop irrelevant?

i.e. the backstop only becomes law if the WA passes?

Bit cynical

Geuze wrote: »

A quick question on the backstop.

As it is part of the WA, then if the WA is not passed in the UK parliament, and instead Brexit occurs without a WA, then is the backstop irrelevant?

i.e. the backstop only becomes law if the WA passes?

Yes it is irrelevant if there's no WA as the backstop only exists as part of the WA.

Laois_Man

Bit cynical wrote: »

whereas Ireland would probably modify its demands given the chance at that point.

What should Ireland modify its demands to?

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Of course we can't insist on an agreement. But an agreement is much more essential to us than the EU as a whole which can live without one. Therein, I would argue, lies the difference between Ireland's position and the EU's. The EU can insist on an time-unlimited backstop knowing full well that no national parliament would ever agree with it thereby resulting in no deal, whereas Ireland would probably modify its demands given the chance at that point.

The EU is insisting on it because Ireland wants it and I have seen absolutely no indication that Ireland would have any interest at all in changing their viewpoint. The EU hasn't exactly gone off on their own here - their entire Irish strategy is being driven by what Ireland want. The UK are essentially trying to bully their way out of the backstop and you don't give in to that kind of behaviour no matter what.

eire4

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Referendum on, referendum off.

Interim Scotch Tory leader:

https://twitter.com/Carlaw4Eastwood/status/1073597709481844736

The only referendum I can see likely happening lead by Scotland is an independence referendum.

josip

I would have trusted the BBC's independence up to now, but it's obvious that there's a message being ever so subtly pushed.
eg. In some comment about Juncker's hair ruffling today.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-46567777
"So she is part of Mr Juncker's large team."

A gentle reminder to all you Brexiteers that your hard earned taxes are going to support Juncker's massive entourage.

briany

seamus wrote: »

In essence, the basis of virtually all treaties is compromise - in that all parties cease an activity or relinquish control over something in return for the other parties doing the same.

When one party violates a treaty (knowingly), the other parties are in effect free to declare the treaty void and resume the activity they previously shunned.

That's the simplified version. In practical terms, everyone goes back to the table with independent arbitration to try and resolve the breach and restore the treaty.

The GFA is especially complicated, not least because it is between 2 sovereign states AND 2 paramilitary organisations who may not be willing to wait before resuming their activities. But also because the GFA is codified in the constitutions of both RoI and the UK.

The is where the chain of causality gets blurry and freaky. If a no-deal Brexit is found to be by default in breach of the GFA, this may in turn mean that the UK is in breach of its own constitution. Which may mean that a no-deal Brexit is unconstitutional. Which of course, would only be declared several years after the fact when the UK has already left.

Did anyone mention that the EU is more complicated than "Leave or Remain", yet?

Yes. All the time. Brexiteers have had the considered response of, "LALALALALALALALA".

To the point on the GFA, I'm not sure how Brexit would violate it by default. If neither side is willing to put up a border, and citizens can come and go just as freely as they had done, and tariffs are not enforced, then not a lot changes except for the atmosphere. It'd be a pretty weird time, and would certainly be finite because economic pressure would eventually change that situation, but the current hare-brained idea of the ERG seems to be that they'll not erect a border just long for Ireland (under pressure from the EU, they reckon) will erect one, at which point the UK can say, "Well, that's the GFA done. Might as well put up a border of our own. Your fault. Lol."

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

It will be more "we are in unison with the UK, sad to see them leave but want a great future relationship". "TM is incredible, working so hard and enjoys the support of all 27 memebers" blah blah.

I think they may have lost patience.

Maybe something direct like "A negotiated deal is on the table. Stay, take the deal or leave without it: there will be no further changes in the EU position."