Border Poll discussion

facehugger99 wrote: »

It costs the British taxpayers over €10bn a year to keep the lights on.

*sigh* No basis for that figure whatsoever.

<SNIP>

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Avatar MIA wrote: »

*sigh* No basis for that figure whatsoever.

<SNIP>

Please heed the charter, in particular:

Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. We do not expect posters to be experts in all areas, however, the onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned.

Several posters have posted links to the UK government's stats at this stage.

It's fine to suggest that the cost will change post-unification, but simply saying there's "no basis whatsoever" to the current figure is misleading.

Thanks

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the point people are making is that the existing agreement (GFA) has to be honoured first by a special mechanism, regardless of what the rest of the UK decide to do. The GFA had separated northern Ireland already, so to speak.
The British found that mechanism themselves, but a northern Ireland political entity is opposed to it against the majority of people, against farming organisations and business organisations and the advice of security chiefs.

Who is being inconsistent I wonder?

You see, again I don't get this.

The EU is an international agreement, yet the UK can withdraw from it and this is accepted by all. In fact, it is argued that the UK can partially withdraw from it etc. in respect of Northern Ireland, yet cannot do so for Scotland.

Yet, the GFA is only an international agreement too. In fact, as far as I know, it is not subject to any international court, unlike the EU which has the ECJ. Yet, it is considered sacrosant on these pages.

I can well understand that for us (Ireland) the political reasons why this is so, but there are alternative possibilities out there for the UK - ditch the GFA and/or take a very limited view of its requirements.

From a legal point of view, there is nothing stopping the UK repudiating the GFA.

blanch152 wrote: »

You see, again I don't get this.

The EU is an international agreement, yet the UK can withdraw from it and this is accepted by all. In fact, it is argued that the UK can partially withdraw from it etc. in respect of Northern Ireland, yet cannot do so for Scotland.

Yet, the GFA is only an international agreement too. In fact, as far as I know, it is not subject to any international court, unlike the EU which has the ECJ. Yet, it is considered sacrosant on these pages.

I can well understand that for us (Ireland) the political reasons why this is so, but there are alternative possibilities out there for the UK - ditch the GFA and/or take a very limited view of its requirements.

From a legal point of view, there is nothing stopping the UK repudiating the GFA.

Nothing, except their reputation (unless they submit themselves to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which they are probably unlikely to do after losing the Chagos Islands case to Mauritius.) which they have decided to preserve in this case.

As we have seen, there is nothing stopping anybody doing what they want here, but there would be a cost and that is the pickle the UK finds itself in.

blanch152 wrote: »

You see, again I don't get this.

The EU is an international agreement, yet the UK can withdraw from it and this is accepted by all. In fact, it is argued that the UK can partially withdraw from it etc. in respect of Northern Ireland, yet cannot do so for Scotland.

The EU is an international agreement with legal structures that allow for leaving the organisation. They're not breaking a signed agreement to do so, and so the UK doesn't get a reputation for flaunting international legal texts.

Yet, the GFA is only an international agreement too. In fact, as far as I know, it is not subject to any international court, unlike the EU which has the ECJ. Yet, it is considered sacrosant on these pages.

I can well understand that for us (Ireland) the political reasons why this is so, but there are alternative possibilities out there for the UK - ditch the GFA and/or take a very limited view of its requirements.

"Only" an international agreement. In the same way membership in the EU is 'only' an agreement. Trade agreements are 'only' international agreements. The GFA is a legally binding document as much as any international agreement is. Yes, as a sovereign state, the UK can decide "we're not interested anymore" and tear up the GFA but that's going to have serious repercussions. Who's going to want to make any kind of agreement with a state that shows a willingness to ignore, flaunt, and dismantle legally binding texts because they're incovenient? Why would the EU ever agree to any kind of trade agreement? Large number of US politicians would throw a fit if the UK ignored the legally binding GFA, which won't help with getting any kind of agreements with the United States.

The key difference between leaving the EU and ignoring the GFA is that the international agreements which commit a member state to EU membership allow for signatories to leave. That's the whole point of Article 50.

The GFA has no such opt-out clause - there is no legal method by which the UK can scrap it and not be breaking the agreement. Can they do it? Sure, the EU is hardly going to invade the UK if they do so. But it would reflect extremely poorly on them.

Dytalus wrote: »

The EU is an international agreement with legal structures that allow for leaving the organisation. They're not breaking a signed agreement to do so, and so the UK doesn't get a reputation for flaunting international legal texts.

"Only" an international agreement. In the same way membership in the EU is 'only' an agreement. Trade agreements are 'only' international agreements. The GFA is a legally binding document as much as any international agreement is. Yes, as a sovereign state, the UK can decide "we're not interested anymore" and tear up the GFA but that's going to have serious repercussions. Who's going to want to make any kind of agreement with a state that shows a willingness to ignore, flaunt, and dismantle legally binding texts because they're incovenient? Why would the EU ever agree to any kind of trade agreement? Large number of US politicians would throw a fit if the UK ignored the legally binding GFA, which won't help with getting any kind of agreements with the United States.

The key difference between leaving the EU and ignoring the GFA is that the international agreements which commit a member state to EU membership allow for signatories to leave. That's the whole point of Article 50.

The GFA has no such opt-out clause - there is no legal method by which the UK can scrap it and not be breaking the agreement. Can they do it? Sure, the EU is hardly going to invade the UK if they do so. But it would reflect extremely poorly on them.

There is little point in taking them to court it seems anyhow. I was just updating myself on the Chagos Islands and it seems that under one 'Boris Johnson's' tenure as FS that the ICJ ruled that they had acted illegally and should hand back control of the islands to Mauritius.

What did they do? They refused to recognise the courts jurisdiction! :cool:

Dytalus wrote: »

The EU is an international agreement with legal structures that allow for leaving the organisation. They're not breaking a signed agreement to do so, and so the UK doesn't get a reputation for flaunting international legal texts.

"Only" an international agreement. In the same way membership in the EU is 'only' an agreement. Trade agreements are 'only' international agreements. The GFA is a legally binding document as much as any international agreement is. Yes, as a sovereign state, the UK can decide "we're not interested anymore" and tear up the GFA but that's going to have serious repercussions. Who's going to want to make any kind of agreement with a state that shows a willingness to ignore, flaunt, and dismantle legally binding texts because they're incovenient? Why would the EU ever agree to any kind of trade agreement? Large number of US politicians would throw a fit if the UK ignored the legally binding GFA, which won't help with getting any kind of agreements with the United States.

The key difference between leaving the EU and ignoring the GFA is that the international agreements which commit a member state to EU membership allow for signatories to leave. That's the whole point of Article 50.

The GFA has no such opt-out clause - there is no legal method by which the UK can scrap it and not be breaking the agreement. Can they do it? Sure, the EU is hardly going to invade the UK if they do so. But it would reflect extremely poorly on them.

It is too long to go into this, but not all international agreements have the same legal force. Some can be subject to international courts, some not.

Ultimately, state sovereignty means that any state can withdraw from any international treaty. Didn't the US do that a couple of months back in respect of an aspect of the Treaty on Nuclear testing?

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Everything's far from fine up North - that's kinda the point.

It costs the British taxpayers over €10bn a year to keep the lights on.

It'll be a very simple choice for the ROI voters between building schools, hospitals and roads or paying for a outdated nationalist pipe-dream.

What will they choose I wonder?*

*Spoiler Alert - rejection

That's not how it is though.
The ROI isn't perfect we could say that a United Ireland will stop another NCH going insanely and incompetently over budget and might not be such a bad thing, if we're winging it here.
The point is anyone selling the choice, United Ireland or Hospitals and Roads, doesn't know how the ROI or any country works. Saying it might cost a lot and other projects may be put on hold might be more honest.

The ROI might save northern Ireland from becoming a nuclear waste dumping ground. There's a realistic plus.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is little point in taking them to court it seems anyhow. I was just updating myself on the Chagos Islands and it seems that under one 'Boris Johnson's' tenure as FS that the ICJ ruled that they had acted illegally and should hand back control of the islands to Mauritius.

What did they do? They refused to recognise the courts jurisdiction! :cool:

Yeah, that certainly muddies matters. Ultimately short of sanctions (or war, I suppose) it's not really possible to enforce international agreements to the same extent as contracts between people.

You'd have a hard time finding a jail cell that would fit the entire houses of parliament.

Still, the UK has sworn to uphold the GFA. They recognise the importance of the document in maintaining peace. We'll just have to take them at their word.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is too long to go into this, but not all international agreements have the same legal force. Some can be subject to international courts, some not.

Ultimately, state sovereignty means that any state can withdraw from any international treaty. Didn't the US do that a couple of months back in respect of an aspect of the Treaty on Nuclear testing?

But they are not 'withdrawing' from it. They have committed to upholding it, therefore...

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

It is too long to go into this, but not all international agreements have the same legal force. Some can be subject to international courts, some not.

Ultimately, state sovereignty means that any state can withdraw from any international treaty. Didn't the US do that a couple of months back in respect of an aspect of the Treaty on Nuclear testing?

I find in fascinating that you would even begin to question the strength of an agreement with the UK, helped along by the US, and lodged with the UN, that ended a lethal conflict, because you don't think it's subject to international courts.

Honestly, I have very little respect for people who take their morality from the law which is what you're doing now. The UK throwing it away would be one of the biggest peacetime faux-pas of any country, ever. Sure, they can do it, and you think it wouldn't be a big deal, but outside of your bubble, it would be huge.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

You see, again I don't get this.

The EU is an international agreement, yet the UK can withdraw from it and this is accepted by all. In fact, it is argued that the UK can partially withdraw from it etc. in respect of Northern Ireland, yet cannot do so for Scotland.

Yet, the GFA is only an international agreement too. In fact, as far as I know, it is not subject to any international court, unlike the EU which has the ECJ. Yet, it is considered sacrosant on these pages.

I can well understand that for us (Ireland) the political reasons why this is so, but there are alternative possibilities out there for the UK - ditch the GFA and/or take a very limited view of its requirements.

From a legal point of view, there is nothing stopping the UK repudiating the GFA.

There certainly is. Treaties are legally binding, and breaching them is illegal.

True, there may be issues about what enforcement action is possible. There's no international police force that will arrest you for breaking international law and put you in international jail. There's a range of sanctions that other states can take, which range from a stiff diplomatic note at one end of the scale, through withdrawal of co-operation, declaratory court judgements, sanctions, etc through to the Partitions of Poland at the other. What is possible in any case does very much depend on the power politics of the situation. But there's no doubt that violating treaty obligations is a breach of international law.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is too long to go into this, but not all international agreements have the same legal force. Some can be subject to international courts, some not.

Ultimately, state sovereignty means that any state can withdraw from any international treaty. Didn't the US do that a couple of months back in respect of an aspect of the Treaty on Nuclear testing?

Well, yes. I did address that - you can't really force a country to obey what is essentially a contract the same you can a person. Johnny Ordinary can be arrested...who's going to wave a stick at a state as powerful as the US?

The UK's biggest risk with simply up and abandoning the GFA (internationally, at least) is its reputation. It's not the hyperpower of the world that the US is, so people would be less willing to let it get away with stuff. It has a greater need to be a trustworthy partner in international treaties if it wants to have any friends post-Brexit. States would be far more willing to impose sanctions, or refuse to sign trade agreements, if doing so forced the UK to toe the line of international law.

Internally, of course, abandoning the GFA comes with a considerable risk of violence. A hard border is already very likely to provoke violence from dissidents, straight tearing up the Belfast Agreement practically guarantees it. This is probably the more immediate concern, and is why the UK has sworn to uphold the agreement.

Dytalus wrote: »

I'd be okay with that - people should have the right to decide how they're treated. At the very least, the parties they elect should decide that for them.

The problem comes with the nature of the UK and Northern Ireland's place in it. Removal from the customs union isn't within the power of Stormont (correct me if I am wrong), foreign affairs are decided by Westminster. The people of NI could well decide they want to leave by voting in a majority party that's anti-backstop but...then what?

It's not us you need to convince. It's Westminster. So long as the backstop prevents headaches for the UK as a whole, it's not impossible that the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland will be ignored. Just as they are being ignored now with the handling of Brexit.

Plus, as FrancieBrady mentioned above the UK is legally bound by the Good Friday Agreement. While it doesn't strictly require no hard border, everyone who's an expert on the document says that a hard border is against the GFA. If they renege on the GFA, they're breaking a legal agreement and the Ireland (via the EU) isn't going to be willing to sign any trade agreements without the matter being addressed. The GFA is the main reason NI is being held in the single market (and the UK as a whole being in the customs union), rather than any conspiracy from Dublin or Brussels. Your government had made a promise and they are being asked to keep it.

I know Francie just wants to give NI people the right to decide when they decide what he wants.
but if i am reading you correctly then you are also saying that the people of NI should not have the right to decide if they are in the single market or not. Big Bold ROI is going to hold little NI in against their will??

I am simply saying that if we went with WA and down the line UK gets completely out of SM then NI should have the right to decide whether it wants to go out with UK or stay in some limboland in between

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The logic used in the above is staggeringly poor (as well as obvious, so mods don't shoot me for not giving it time to detail).

Btw, there has been one poll that showed in favour of a UI. Just to show the error in your "facts".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland

I'll not get into your first statement - suffice to say that i'm sure YOU'LL be fine.

What i am frustrated about is you posting a very long wikipedia page and not have the manners to identify which poll you are talking about.

You know that i hold my hands up if shown to be wrong (i know thats rare) but I would like you to direct me to which of the many polls on that page you are referring to
thanks in anticipation

downcow wrote: »

I know Francie just wants to give NI people the right to decide when they decide what he wants.
but if i am reading you correctly then you are also saying that the people of NI should not have the right to decide if they are in the single market or not. Big Bold ROI is going to hold little NI in against their will??

I am simply saying that if we went with WA and down the line UK gets completely out of SM then NI should have the right to decide whether it wants to go out with UK or stay in some limboland in between

It isn't limboland, it is a place of special status conferred on it by commitments given both the governments and the EU as a whole in the GFA.

You cannot just ignore that. Failure to face up to that is why the UK is against a wall right now.

downcow wrote: »

I'll not get into your first statement - suffice to say that i'm sure YOU'LL be fine.

What i am frustrated about is you posting a very long wikipedia page and not have the manners to identify which poll you are talking about.

You know that i hold my hands up if shown to be wrong (i know thats rare) but I would like you to direct me to which of the many polls on that page you are referring to
thanks in anticipation

It was the one imaginatively highlighted in Green. It linked to this... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-45391529

downcow wrote: »

I know Francie just wants to give NI people the right to decide when they decide what he wants.
but if i am reading you correctly then you are also saying that the people of NI should not have the right to decide if they are in the single market or not. Big Bold ROI is going to hold little NI in against their will??

I am simply saying that if we went with WA and down the line UK gets completely out of SM then NI should have the right to decide whether it wants to go out with UK or stay in some limboland in between

"Big Bold ROI" has decided no such thing. The EU, at the behest of ROI, went to the UK and said "Hey, buddy, remember that agreement you signed a few years back in Belfast? This kind of risks wrecking it."

The EU suggested one way of solving it, which the UK didn't like. The current backstop arrangement, the Backstop that is in the Withdrawal Agreement, was the UK's idea. This is constantly forgotten by people who accuse the EU and ROI of bullying. "How dare the EU not come up with a way to change the plan we made so that we can agree to it!"

There are no more alternatives. Either NI stays in the single market, or there is a hard border. There's no middle ground currently, there are no alternatives, there is no way to avoid this. There is a backstop, there is a border poll, there is a hard border, or there is no Brexit. Those are your options - take your pick.

And while it might be nice if NI gets to decide if it stays in 'limboland' (it's not limbo at all, everyone knows exactly what it entails - or they should. Again, HMG came up with the current plan) or leaves the SM with the rest of the UK ultimately NI has no ability to make that decision. Based on the current vote they voted to stay in the SM and Westminster went ahead with Brexit without consideration as how to address NI's problems with it.

Why on earth would they suddenly start listening further down the line?

Edit: Just realised I've gotten my threads mixed up and thought I was somewhere else. Discussing the backstop or NI staying in the single market isn't really in the purview of the current thread. So to play it safe I shan't be continuing this discussion further unless it swings back to the border poll. Apologies.

Quin_Dub

downcow wrote: »

I know Francie just wants to give NI people the right to decide when they decide what he wants.
but if i am reading you correctly then you are also saying that the people of NI should not have the right to decide if they are in the single market or not. Big Bold ROI is going to hold little NI in against their will??

I am simply saying that if we went with WA and down the line UK gets completely out of SM then NI should have the right to decide whether it wants to go out with UK or stay in some limboland in between

##Mod Note##

This is not the Brexit thread, let's stick to the topic.

Obviously there are some elements of overlap, but discussion of the WA, CU or SM etc. are nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Back on topic please.

Dytalus wrote: »

Well, yes. I did address that - you can't really force a country to obey what is essentially a contract the same you can a person. Johnny Ordinary can be arrested...who's going to wave a stick at a state as powerful as the US?

The UK's biggest risk with simply up and abandoning the GFA (internationally, at least) is its reputation. It's not the hyperpower of the world that the US is, so people would be less willing to let it get away with stuff. It has a greater need to be a trustworthy partner in international treaties if it wants to have any friends post-Brexit. States would be far more willing to impose sanctions, or refuse to sign trade agreements, if doing so forced the UK to toe the line of international law.

Internally, of course, abandoning the GFA comes with a considerable risk of violence. A hard border is already very likely to provoke violence from dissidents, straight tearing up the Belfast Agreement practically guarantees it. This is probably the more immediate concern, and is why the UK has sworn to uphold the agreement.

I don't disagree with any of that. I didn't say that abandoning the GFA was a good idea. I just disagreed with the notion that it was legally impossible or that the GFA was the one agreement to rule them all, which is how it is sometimes portrayed.

It also must be remembered that the UK would only be repudiating aspects of the GFA, and then, only economic co-operation parts, which in their opinion no longer fitted with the democratically expressed will of the people of the UK in the Brexit referendum.

The constitutional parts of the GFA, for example, would remain intact.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It was the one imaginatively highlighted in Green. It linked to this... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-45391529

Ok. So I didn’t think you’d be correct and I didn’t think I would have to apologise.
So there is no poll in history that had majority wanting UI.
You are sighting a poll on a hypothetical situation ie a hard brexit combined with current scaremongering could carry a massive 52%.
Let’s ask all the mice that if the moon was made of cheese would they vote to go and live there and then we can state that there is a majority of mice who want to live in the moon.

Now I can’t even remember what the question was that you felt the need to take us of on a scurrilous fictional poll claim. But good one!

downcow wrote: »

Ok. So I didn’t think you’d be correct and I didn’t think I would have to apologise.
So there is no poll in history that had majority wanting UI.
You are sighting a poll on a hypothetical situation ie a hard brexit combined with current scaremongering could carry a massive 52%.
Let’s ask all the mice that if the moon was made of cheese would they vote to go and live there and then we can state that there is a majority of mice who want to live in the moon.

Now I can’t even remember what the question was that you felt the need to take us of on a scurrilous fictional poll claim. But good one!

What's fictional about it more so than all other non binding polls? All non binding polls are fictional.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What's fictional about it more so than all other non binding polls? All non binding polls are fictional.

Not getting involved in your discussion, but it was an online poll which are notoriously inaccuate as they tend to exclude the voice of the older generation who are more likely to vote.

blanch152 wrote: »

Not getting involved in your discussion, but it was an online poll which are notoriously inaccuate as they tend to exclude the voice of the older generation who are more likely to vote.

Have I defended the poll? No.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Have I defended the poll? No.

You flagged it up though as the one example that a UI might be possible some time in the future.

A lot of talk on hear that a no deal may make a UI more palatable for the NI audience.
Curious if there is a deal do people think that’s all talk of UI gone for a generation.
Certainty would be helpful to relationships in north.

James Brown

downcow wrote: »

A lot of talk on hear that a no deal may make a UI more palatable for the NI audience.
Curious if there is a deal do people think that’s all talk of UI gone for a generation.
Certainty would be helpful to relationships in north.

Brexit heightens the profile of a United Ireland but although it may not make it it will certainly not break it.
It'll never go away. It will always be an issue as long as we have the divided isle situation in place.
As regards helpful to relationships, they'll always be some on any side unhappy, we know this.

downcow wrote: »

You flagged it up though as the one example that a UI might be possible some time in the future.

Yes. Only to correct your "facts".