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

snowstorm445

This is the sort of attitude we’re up against. It’s these sorts of comments that make you hope it’s a hard Brexit. They entirely deserve what’s coming. https://mobile.twitter.com/patcondell/status/1076146151752192000

Infini

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The brilliant thing about the church's influence and "Home rule is Rome rule" is that NI is a lot more conservative than Ireland now. Hell the UK is more conservative the Ireland.

To put it in context as well the south was poorer while NI was prosperous a century ago when Unionism first came about. The irony is the opposite is now true the catholic church is as popular and as influential as a lead weight in no small part to the women bashing and the kiddy fiddling scandals while the south is richer and the north a basket case because of English mismanagement of their Northern territories

LeinsterDub

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes indeed. Several legal experts have pointed out that Scotland and Northern Ireland should by rights have had a veto over massive constitutional change like Brexit being imposed on them, but as you say, the 'United Kingdom' is a quite bizarre political entity (totally dominated by one country and one parliament).

Well that's the trouble when you don't get around to writing the thing down in a single unified place.

bob mcbob

Now the Brexiteers' masks are beginning to slip.

For DD, JRM, Raab, etc, what this really is about is weakening EU standards on (environment, food, employment, etc).

"A six-day trip to the US by former Brexit secretary David Davis was partly funded by an American lobbying organisation that is alleged to favour weakening European Union regulations on environmental and food standards."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/us-agribusiness-lobbyists-paid-for-trip-by-david-davis

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

The problem with that is that northern Ireland will refuse to be 'forgotten'. That is the mistake Dublin made after partition. Brexit will ensure that it won't be. Nationalists or those who identify as Irish, who live there will ensure it won't. They are as entitled as unionists to choose the future that's best for them. And what happens if they choose a UI is enshrined in an international agreement, that WE in the south co-garunteed.

That's what the GFA is about. When nationalists can outvote the unionists they can take it further.

In the meantime......

FrancieBrady

First Up wrote: »

Unionists are motivated at least as much by dislike/hatred of the ROI as love of the UK - by a lot more in many cases.

After watching De Valera's Ireland, the dominance of the Catholic Church and the small matter of the IRA, its hard to blame them. It would need a lot more than a faster growing economy or feeling short changed by London to change their minds.

It isn't going to happen so we need to forget about it and put our energies into re-enforcing our position in Europe and maximising the opportunities. Let N.I work things out for itself.

The problem with that is that northern Ireland will refuse to be 'forgotten'. That is the mistake Dublin made after partition.
Brexit will ensure that it won't be. Nationalists or those who identify as Irish, who live there will ensure it won't.
They are as entitled as unionists to choose the future that's best for them. And what happens if they choose a UI is enshrined in an international agreement, that WE in the south co-garunteed.

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

Unionists are motivated at least as much by dislike/hatred of the ROI as love of the UK - by a lot more in many cases.

After watching De Valera's Ireland, the dominance of the Catholic Church and the small matter of the IRA, its hard to blame them. It would need a lot more than a faster growing economy or feeling short changed by London to change their minds.

It isn't going to happen so we need to forget about it and put our energies into re-enforcing our position in Europe and maximising the opportunities. Let N.I work things out for itself.

The brilliant thing about the church's influence and "Home rule is Rome rule" is that NI is a lot more conservative than Ireland now. Hell the UK is more conservative the Ireland.

road_high

First Up wrote: »

Unionists are motivated at least as much by dislike/hatred of the ROI as love of the UK - by a lot more in many cases.

After watching De Valera's Ireland, the dominance of the Catholic Church and the small matter of the IRA, its hard to blame them. It would need a lot more than a faster growing economy or feeling short changed by London to change their minds.

It isn't going to happen so we need to forget about it and put our energies into re-enforcing our position in Europe and maximising the opportunities. Let N.I work things out for itself.

Yes but they are only one half of the community in the north, it doesn’t mean we should abandon our nationalist kin in the north. We need to strengthen their role in this country further ie votes in some elections

First Up

Unionists are motivated at least as much by dislike/hatred of the ROI as love of the UK - by a lot more in many cases.

After watching De Valera's Ireland, the dominance of the Catholic Church and the small matter of the IRA, its hard to blame them. It would need a lot more than a faster growing economy or feeling short changed by London to change their minds.

It isn't going to happen so we need to forget about it and put our energies into re-enforcing our position in Europe and maximising the opportunities. Let N.I work things out for itself.

Infini

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

If there a good way to look at things it would be to basically step back and evaluate the worth of the union and wether as a unionist your getting a good deal or your being shafted by those with ulterior motives in Westminster. A united Ireland would not be the perfect solution for example but if one like yourself has a preference for the union then the best way to look at it is at what point is the union a worse deal than a UI because Brexit has the portential to do serious damage to NI.

If theres anything to look at this its how the likes of the DUP have acted purely on ideology rather than pragmatic facts and trying to get the best deal possible. Theyre also hypocrites saying they want to be treated no different than the rest of the UK until the likes of abortion and same sex marrige come along for example. Their position is also ridiculous as by supporting Brexit they made the UI issue come to the fore when it was suppressed beforhand and decades away.

The whole border issue is ultimately down to the UK not having any plan for leaving and repeatedly making a mess over and over and not knowing what it even wants. It probabky wont get sorted UNLESS A50 is cancelled before its too late because otherwise it turns into an utter mess that will take years to resolve if at all.

Strazdas

road_high wrote: »

God bless and thanks to our forefathers that got us out (with great difficulty) of that rotten “Union” which is set up to serve England, and serve England first and foremost. It’s only the past few years when I see the reality of Brexit I have begun to have a greater appreciation of what they faced but we did it and 100 years later we are all the better for it

Agree completely. There has been a huge amount of debate over the years as to whether the Irish state did the right thing breaking away and as to whether it might have been better going down the Home Rule route but most historians are coming around to the idea that the state becoming an independent republic was the best thing that could have happened. It's becoming very clear the country would be ignored and pushed around if it had maintained any link to the UK.

road_high

EdgeCase wrote: »

Fundementally the problem is the UK doesn't have UK politics. It has English politics and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are pretty just bolted to it and dragged along.

There's no federal system and there's always a supremacy of Englishness over Britishness and the two are quite interchangeable when it suits them. For example the central bank isn't the Bank of the UK. It's the Bank of England and there are loads of other examples of this kind of mentality.

They can't even seem to comprehend that UK = the entire country and Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland and persist in doing things like having an olympic team called Team GB not team UK.

In most sports the UK also plays as seperate countries and somehow this is acceptable to international sports in a way that German states (which are legally far more autonomous than Scotland or Wales) are not allowed to do similar.

So even in sport England doesn't consider itself British and there isn't even a proper adjective for UKish.

That mentality is also pretty much also why we ended up declaring independence in the first place too - policy making that was always designed to suit England and that literally fed into a famine here.

Think about it : 1801 Act of Union .... 1840s famine and mass emigration - in the world's biggest super power at the time.

This would be the equivalent of the USA managing to starve a significant chunk of its own population. It was absolute social and economic failure by the UK Government.

Then you had uprisings, and uprisings and eventually Irish nationalism and independence.

The situation in the modern UK is just a less extreme extension of the same problems and there has been a fuzzy devolution process. However, Scotland and Wales are considered by many people in England to be foreign. There's a disjointed notion of 'my precious' union when any of them suggest leaving, but when they are in the union they are largely ignored.

It's a very unusual 'country' and I think Brexit is laying bare for all to see just how divided it actually is both structurally and politically.

They really need to go have a long hard think about what the future of the UK is because it's showing itself at the moment to suffer from huge internal fishers that can easily become fractures.

It's also no wonder they can't manage to comprehend the EU when they can't even manage to pool sovereignty in an equal manner at home.

God bless and thanks to our forefathers that got us out (with great difficulty) of that rotten “Union” which is set up to serve England, and serve England first and foremost. It’s only the past few years when I see the reality of Brexit I have begun to have a greater appreciation of what they faced but we did it and 100 years later we are all the better for it

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

Fundementally the problem is the UK doesn't have UK politics. It has English politics and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are pretty just bolted to it and dragged along.......

Yes indeed. Several legal experts have pointed out that Scotland and Northern Ireland should by rights have had a veto over massive constitutional change like Brexit being imposed on them, but as you say, the 'United Kingdom' is a quite bizarre political entity (totally dominated by one country and one parliament).

seamus

While a good half of the planet are leaving work with the intention of getting drunk, relaxing with family and forgetting about current affairs, the UK government has taken the opportunity to publish its healthcare plan in the event of a no-deal:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/brexit-operational-readiness-guidance-for-the-health-and-social-care-system-in-england

Choice section noted by a UK healthcare professional;

All health and adult social care providers to:
...
• Direct staff to promote messages of continuity and reassurance to people who use
health and care services, including that they should not store additional medicines at
home

Loose lips sink ships, keep calm and carry on. And so forth.

Asking healthcare providers to be propaganda mouthpieces and assist in rationing medicines. Not because of war, but because of an entirely self-inflicted and voluntary scenario, which they could still avoid with the flick of a pen.

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

I say again. I am not supporting a hard border. I am just saying there is no legal reason why it cannot happen

Well there actually is. Section 10 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was signed by the Queen on 26th June this year, specifically prohibits it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Could not have said it any better myself

EdgeCase

Fundementally the problem is the UK doesn't have UK politics. It has English politics and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are pretty just bolted to it and dragged along.

There's no federal system and there's always a supremacy of Englishness over Britishness and the two are quite interchangeable when it suits them. For example the central bank isn't the Bank of the UK. It's the Bank of England and there are loads of other examples of this kind of mentality.

They can't even seem to comprehend that UK = the entire country and Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland and persist in doing things like having an olympic team called Team GB not team UK.

In most sports the UK also plays as seperate countries and somehow this is acceptable to international sports in a way that German states (which are legally far more autonomous than Scotland or Wales) are not allowed to do similar.

So even in sport England doesn't consider itself British and there isn't even a proper adjective for UKish.

That mentality is also pretty much also why we ended up declaring independence in the first place too - policy making that was always designed to suit England and that literally fed into a famine here.

Think about it : 1801 Act of Union .... 1840s famine and mass emigration - in the world's biggest super power at the time.

This would be the equivalent of the USA managing to starve a significant chunk of its own population. It was absolute social and economic failure by the UK Government.

Then you had uprisings, and uprisings and eventually Irish nationalism and independence.

The situation in the modern UK is just a less extreme extension of the same problems and there has been a fuzzy devolution process. However, Scotland and Wales are considered by many people in England to be foreign. There's a disjointed notion of 'my precious' union when any of them suggest leaving, but when they are in the union they are largely ignored.

It's a very unusual 'country' and I think Brexit is laying bare for all to see just how divided it actually is both structurally and politically.

They really need to go have a long hard think about what the future of the UK is because it's showing itself at the moment to suffer from huge internal fishers that can easily become fractures.

It's also no wonder they can't manage to comprehend the EU when they can't even manage to pool sovereignty in an equal manner at home.

Imreoir2

seamus wrote: »

He's talking about passport checks at entry points in and out of the North. I.e. between NI and the UK.

Is it really that onerous that people arriving in NI via plane or boat would have to go into a "UK & Ireland passport holders" line at arrivals?

There would be no need for passport checks anyway, onerous or not.

seamus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The status quo

Why would there be any need for passport checks within NI?

He's talking about passport checks at entry points in and out of the North. I.e. between NI and the UK.

Is it really that onerous that people arriving in NI via plane or boat would have to go into a "UK & Ireland passport holders" line at arrivals?

demfad

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

The UK electorate has a right to Brexit that is an internal matter for the UK.

However, the UK does not have a right to breach International treaties. The GFA is a very aspirational document. It is designed to be all things to all people, with compromises throen in. It is in effect a tool to create desired outcomes.
In Strand 2, North/South cooperation and the all Island economy are greatly enhanced by the GFA. By leaving the CU/SM the UK is demolishing this. The GFA (if not breached) is no longer fit for purpose. That said the UK may not be in legal breach of the GFA.

The Irish Government and by extension the whole EU can only protect the parts related to the ROI. So Strand 2 primarily is protected. The leverage we have is to the withdrawal agreement. That is why the backstop is in there.

The softening of any future trade border between NI and GB by providing no checks in NI to GB direction is to specifically make sure that NI is not economically hurt.

Some Unionists may see this as diminishing their parity of esteem. If this is true how can they then insist on a hard border with no backstop which destroys Strand 2 and Irish Citizens parity of esteem in NI?

The best solution to this is for all of the UK to remain in the CU/SM. The UK gave no consideration to Ireland, North or South by trying to impose their red lines.

Failing that the second best situation is the backstop arrangement for ROI and NI. If Unionists feel this is undermining their parity of esteem as UK citizens they should not push for a solution that undermines Irish citizens (resident in NI) parity of esteem.

murphaph

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

There would be NO passport controls at Larne or anywhere between NI<->GB. There would be an increase in checks on goods (there are already checks on animals as NI farmers are more than happy to be considered Irish when GB has one of its (fairly regular) outbreaks of disease.

This is the price of Brexit. Brexit was a close run thing. NI unionists played a significant role in getting it over the line given the overwhelming majority of Brexit supporters in NI are unionists. They did not give the GFA one moment's thought before voting leave.

You know deep down that there is no comparison between checks on goods at NI sea ports and checks on goods along a border with 300 crossing points.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

There won't be passport checks. There would be checks on goods between NI and UK (similarly to what happens now with livestock - NI is completely free of BSE whereas GB is not). NI would retain EU regs and standards and would still be under the jurisdiction of ECJ.

So, basically your Rangers fan won't be bothered, unless they try to import livestock to NI from Scotland.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I say again. I am not supporting a hard border. I am just saying there is no legal reason why it cannot happen

There is every legal reason for a hard border which will happen if the UK crashes out without some sort of a deal.

The border is just too porous to be able to enforce it. To do so, hundreds of roads would have to be closed. That would be a major disruption to everyone who lives and works in the border area. That is why Ireland wants the backstop because there are British politicians in control in the UK who don't care what happens to any of the people who live on this island and are only using them to meet their own ends.

History repeating itself again:

''What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power'' - Edward Carson 1921 (on the partition of Ireland).

FreudianSlippers

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yep - the one the RoI electorate voted for, when removing the constitutional claim to the Six Counties.

This!

A hard border might not be mentioned in the GFA, but the implementation of one absolutely obliterates the foundations of the GFA.

A Dub in Glasgo

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

The status quo

Why would there be any need for passport checks within NI?

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

Yep - the one the RoI electorate voted for, when removing the constitutional claim to the Six Counties. The kind of border that everyone knows is there but is so soft, you barely notice it. That worked our really well for everyone - unionists included - so it makes no sense to contemplate "additional measures" to help unionists accept something that is inherently bad for them when their own representatives are the ones saying it's not bad enough!

FreudianSlippers

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, the BBC would have no legal basis for broadcasting in the EU if there was no deal, and is holding talks with Irish and Dutch broadcasting authorities:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/bbc-in-talks-with-irish-and-dutch-regulators-in-no-deal-brexit-planning-1.3738550%3Fmode=amp

A colleague who works in entertainment law was telling me about 2 weeks ago that Sky has moved its broadcasting licence to the Netherlands to continue broadcasting into the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

FreudianSlippers

bob mcbob wrote: »

There won't be ANY UK trucks to block.

From attached article

British lorries would be barred from entering Europe under a no-deal Brexit, according to an industry chief, who warned that British firms would be "crucified" by tariffs if Theresa May fails to secure a deal with the European Union.

James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), told Business Insider that a no-deal Brexit would see Britain revert to an old set of international arrangements which handed Britain just 103 permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks make to Europe every year.

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-trucks-barred-from-europe-under-no-deal-brexit-industry-leader-warns-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

There's a 9-month (IIRC) window implemented now for land freight in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

The CTA continues to exist, you don't need to accept passport controls at Larne because there would be none. There would be increased checks on livestock which your avarage Unionist would never have to interact with.

CelticRambler

While you're around, downcow, and getting away from the border/backstop discussion: you said that you've moved from a neutral position to leaning towards supporting Brexit. What would be the first positive thing you'd want to see (or that you think would happen) under Brexit that would make it worth the risk?