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

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

I believe so, yes.

However, it would undermine their reputation abroad which they're going to need when negotiating deals. That's not something which needs to be made more difficult and the "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" comments don't help either.

VinLieger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

They could but good luck to them when they come knocking for an EU trade deal and the unpaid bill not being the first thing to be discussed.

Leroy42

Downcow, you keep saying that the backstop is the problem, even going as far as saying that it is all Ireland's fault.

So what is your alternative option that the EU should consider?

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

It would be very hard for anyone else to agree anything with the UK because there would be unresolved issues between the UK and the EU to be resolved. - including the NI border which requires regulatory alignment.
Aside from the fact that the UK-EU trade is the largest flow and so would have to take priority as a deal, if another state agreed something before the UK-EU stuff was resolved, they wouldn't know how that UK-EU final deal will impact on their deal.
So difficult to see how they could get any meaningful deals before first agreeing to the WA principles - even if there were a no deal.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Downcow, you keep saying that the backstop is the problem, even going as far as saying that it is all Ireland's fault.

So what is your alternative option that the EU should consider?

It's important to note that 2% of Ireland's exports cross the border whereas 25% of NI's exports cross the border.

FrancieBrady

I think anyone who identifies as Irish in northern Ireland should read and be very concerned about this. I am amazed that this hasn't come into focus more and also amazed that the British were allowed to sit on their hands.

http://eamonnmallie.com/2019/01/how-brexit-is-going-to-expose-the-failure-to-implement-irish-citizenship-provisions-of-the-gfa-by-daniel-holder/?fbclid=IwAR09aKLwZETbur25zhGV89kh2IqcbQ-g7HO2Z5Iy4NLjChnPxoschl99yBQ

It would be hardly compatible with the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) – where the UK and Ireland explicitly recognised the birthright of those born in Northern Ireland to “identify” and be “accepted as” British or Irish (or both) – to then query the rights of Irish citizens to live here, and threaten eviction for non-registration with the UK immigration authorities.

If you get to the small print, the official Home Office line is that Irish citizens are, unlike other EU citizens, not ‘required’ to apply under the EU Settlement Scheme, but “may do so if they wish”. The whole issue has highlighted greater deficiencies, drawing attention to the UK’s failure to properly implement the citizenship provisions of the GFA, the new hardened citizenship boundaries Brexit will inevitably create, and the non-implementation of earlier UK-EU commitments on the EU rights of Irish citizens in NI.

The interaction of the ‘birthright’ provision with the rest of the GFA meant it was not intended to be just about people’s decision to have a British or Irish passport (or both), but rather, as the UK’s own Brexit documents state, the GFA was also supposed to provide for “equal treatment irrespective of their choice.”

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

Actually having the back stop massively increases the UK's negotiating power. Otherwise the UK has a transition period with a ticking clock, and a no deal crash out if it fails to agree "agree to this now or crash out to no deal". With the backstop, the UK Is provided with a safety net with generous terms (terms which some EU MSs were aghast/have misgivings about how generous they were).
Thus for anyone except a brexiter jihadist, the current backstop is a pretty sweet deal for the UK.
Furthermore, clearly the Brexiters intention (as can be seen currently) was to broadly agree a trade deal, not agree anything about NI- then try to railroad the EU into throwing Ireland under a bus. I'm sure you can agree that preventing a hard border in NI is much too important to be used for that.

However another way of looking at it is that the EU, by insisting on a measure that they know will never be accepted by the UK Parliament, is forcing a no deal brexit and thereby throwing Ireland under a bus.

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

However another way of looking at it is that the EU, by insisting on a measure that they know will never be accepted by the UK Parliament, is forcing a no deal brexit and thereby throwing Ireland under a bus.

May negotiated this position and agreed it before the DUP had their strop.
Utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory there.

Bit cynical

FrancieBrady wrote: »

May negotiated this position and agreed it before the DUP had their strop.
Utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory there.

But in the light of parliamentary opposition, May is (or was) trying to obtain concessions on the backstop in order to get it to pass.

otnomart

Simon Coveney just said at Andrew Marr program that Ireland will not object to extension of Article 50

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

May negotiated this position and agreed it before the DUP had their strop.
Utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory there.

220 mps not in the dup voted against deal. Stop trying to imply it’s only the dup took a strop

Bit cynical

otnomart wrote: »

Simon Coveney just said at Andrew Marr program that Ireland will not object to extension of Article 50

Just out of interest, I know a couple of other countries have expressed support for an extension but have any countries said they would actually object or is it mainly the Brussels establishment that opposes an extension?

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

He says that because most people do not know what laws have been added to the legislative framework. Let's ask you, name ten items of EU legislation that have altered Irish law to the benefit of your country.

With O'Brien's question, I start with the principle of the supremacy of EU law over national law, continue with various treaties, go on to policies like the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries Policy and then go through a sample of regulations, directives and decisions taken from the EU database together with ECJ decisions. Sometimes I add breaches of the law which the EU has allowed.

Amazingly there are very few questioners who know anything about EU laws themselves.

Others have pointed out some EU laws that they agree with. I think a easy way to start is to go to this website and see what the UK papers were complaining about from the EU. Then you can either agree if it is a good law or not. It makes it easy for both sides to argue whether there is overreach from the EU into domestic laws for ordinary people.

Euromyths A-Z index

Take this as an example,

Mail on Sunday fails to serve readers full facts on EU food allergen rules that could save lives

New rules being introduced across the EU from 13 December 2014 (by the Food Information for Consumers Regulation 1169/2011) will give allergy sufferers eating out the same information and protection as when they shop in the supermarket. The aim is to prevent avoidable distress and in extreme cases save lives.

Now is that such a terrible rule that the UK has to follow? People with allergies should have the knowledge of what is in the food they are going to eat. That list is very fun to go through if you want to.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Do you think it is, in fact, mentioned?
I don't think she did agree to regulatory differences between NI and UK. There is an interpretation that suggests she did, but the wording is ambiguous.

Well most commentators and politicians seems to think it means exactly that.

Brexit deal explained: backstops, trade and citizens' rights

The backstop means the whole of the UK will remain in the EU customs union, while Northern Ireland will have to follow single market rules.

fash wrote: »

Actually having the back stop massively increases the UK's negotiating power. Otherwise the UK has a transition period with a ticking clock, and a no deal crash out if it fails to agree "agree to this now or crash out to no deal". With the backstop, the UK Is provided with a safety net with generous terms (terms which some EU MSs were aghast/have misgivings about how generous they were).
Thus for anyone except a brexiter jihadist, the current backstop is a pretty sweet deal for the UK.
Furthermore, clearly the Brexiters intention (as can be seen currently) was to broadly agree a trade deal, not agree anything about NI- then try to railroad the EU into throwing Ireland under a bus. I'm sure you can agree that preventing a hard border in NI is much too important to be used for that.

This is another mistake from the UK. They keep setting themselves deadlines and it is always in the favour of the EU. That is why the UK seems to give in at the last minute to all the EU demands, because of those self imposed deadlines.

LeinsterDub

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

He says that because most people do not know what laws have been added to the legislative framework. Let's ask you, name ten items of EU legislation that have altered Irish law to the benefit of your country.

With O'Brien's question, I start with the principle of the supremacy of EU law over national law, continue with various treaties, go on to policies like the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries Policy and then go through a sample of regulations, directives and decisions taken from the EU database together with ECJ decisions. Sometimes I add breaches of the law which the EU has allowed.

Amazingly there are very few questioners who know anything about EU laws themselves.

You didn't name any law you want to change.

Doc07

Coveney giving Andrew Marr and indirectly DUP a good fair hammering. Didn’t flinch at anything fired at him by Marr and both remained civil. Far more composed and consistent that most MPs I’ve seen interviewed.
Poor Healh Minister trying to answer Qs on marshal law and curfews. Off Brexit and on to Facebook and he looks relieved.

Panrich

Bit cynical wrote: »

But in the light of parliamentary opposition, May is (or was) trying to obtain concessions on the backstop in order to get it to pass.

Juncker has already told her that she can have the backstop issue revisited if she agrees to permanent customs union instead. All it takes is to adjust one of her red lines in the spirit of concession on her side.

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

But in the light of parliamentary opposition, May is (or was) trying to obtain concessions on the backstop in order to get it to pass.

downcow wrote: »

220 mps not in the dup voted against deal. Stop trying to imply it’s only the dup took a strop

It is nonsense to suggest a conspiracy to include something the British would never agree to, when your PM agreed to it.
Nobody in December 2017 was expecting the DUP strop nor how hamstrung, confused and dithering May's government actually was.

otnomart

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just out of interest, I know a couple of other countries have expressed support for an extension but have any countries said they would actually object or is it mainly the Brussels establishment that opposes an extension?

So far, I have read Lithuania and Poland would oppose to an extension

Bit cynical

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is nonsense to suggest a conspiracy to include something the British would never agree to, when your PM agreed to it.
Nobody in December 2017 was expecting the DUP strop nor how hamstrung, confused and dithering May's government actually was.

Not my PM. I am Irish.

[Deleted User]

Bit cynical wrote: »

However another way of looking at it is that the EU, by insisting on a measure that they know will never be accepted by the UK Parliament, is forcing a no deal brexit and thereby throwing Ireland under a bus.

Generally speaking, the wrong way to look at something isn't worth anything. Not sure why you'd even bring it up.

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not my PM. I am Irish.

'The PM you are supporting in this', then.

Bit cynical

Panrich wrote: »

Juncker has already told her that she can have the backstop issue revisited if she agrees to permanent customs union instead. All it takes is to adjust one of her red lines in the spirit of concession on her side.

I don't think that is a serious proposal to be honest. Like I said in an earlier post, something like leaving the customs union can't really be regarded as a red line. It is a bit like saying Brexit itself is a red line.

Bit cynical

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'The PM you are supporting in this', then.

I'm not supporting TM.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

However another way of looking at it is that the EU, by insisting on a measure that they know will never be accepted by the UK Parliament, is forcing a no deal brexit and thereby throwing Ireland under a bus.

Throwing Ireland under a bus by insisting on a policy the Irish government pursued within EU as part of the negotiations... Do you realize how silly that line sounds?

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not supporting TM.

No? You are certainly anti the Irish position here as you have consistently undermined it.
The request for the backstop is wrong, challenging the UK on it's committments to the GFA is unwise, the backstop is a conspiracy to force a no deal...etc etc.
Own what you are doing.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Generally speaking, the wrong way to look at something isn't worth anything. Not sure why you'd even bring it up.

That's the very reason why I brought up this other way of looking at it: because the EU doggedly insisting on a measure that has little or no chance of being accepted thereby causing a no deal crash out, is closer to throwing Ireland under a bus than that suggested by the poster.

Bit cynical

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No? You are certainly anti the Irish position here as you have consistently undermined it.
The request for the backstop is wrong, challenging the UK on it's committments to the GFA is unwise, the backstop is a conspiracy to force a no deal...etc etc.
Own what you are doing.

I don't agree that my posts represent an anti-Irish position. Ireland's interests may be better served by evaluating the realism of the negotiating stance taken by the EU on our behalf. I am in favour of minimal border infrastructure and also a favourable trade deal for Ireland (as part of the EU). I don't think the way our side has gone about it serves Ireland's interests in achieving those objectives.

I stand to be very wrong here and I hope I will be proved wrong. The deal negotiated by May is fantastic for Ireland and I would very much like it to be adopted. But we should not mistake our desire for something with the feasibility of it. Overreach is a mistake in negotiations.

Bit cynical

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

What is the alternative? ignoring and ripping up the GFA? and for what exactly

It won't be ripped up. Even in the event of no deal it won't be ripped up.

LuckyLloyd

Neale Richmond playing a blinder on BBC now. Sticking to the lines formed by Coveney and McAtee but cornering the Brexiteer on their responsibilities to the GFA. Very strong performance from Irish politicians in British media this weekend.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

However another way of looking at it is that the EU, by insisting on a measure that they know will never be accepted by the UK Parliament, is forcing a no deal brexit and thereby throwing Ireland under a bus.

However if the EU did allow a situation where there was no backstop, then clearly the EU would be throwing Ireland under a bus and this would even more strongly evidence that the EU was merely a tool of Germany/France - the belief of Brexiters. It's kinda hard to win if you are the EU.

It should be pretty obvious that the backstop is being driven by Ireland - given that Ireland is currently thinking of no deal scenarios such as checks in the Celtic sea.

Furthermore a no deal situation is a temporary problem only - and gets permanently and easily resolved with pretty much any other parliamentary constellations in the HOC. That is aside from the fact that a hard border would be a permanent drag on the economy - and entail a significant cost in policing.
There is also the fact that right now Ireland has the maximum negotiating power in relation to ensuring that there is no hard border - the later it happens the better prepared the UK would be for a no deal.

All inevitably leads to the conclusion that the EU cannot back down on the backstop and it would be stupid for Ireland to do so.

Why do you believe that a no deal is a bad thing that must be avoided at all cost?

Let's not forget: what is in the backstop is the in reality only the bare minimum to avoid a hard border. Any other suggestions are just confirmations that a hard border is an acceptable price for Ireland to pay for brexit.