Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

1…8687899192…323

Comments

  • #2642
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/no-deal-brexit-off-table-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    I know there are literally 100s of speculative opinion pieces you could link but Freedland has been one of the automatic go-to reporters for me during this whole process and i find this a bracing piece. Was news to me that only May can sign the document appealing for a further extension beyond April 12. That seems worrying on a number of levels.


  • #2643
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/no-deal-brexit-off-table-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    I know there are literally 100s of speculative opinion pieces you could link but Freedland has been one of the automatic go-to reporters for me during this whole process and i find this a bracing piece. Was news to me that only May can sign the document appealing for a further extension beyond April 12. That seems worrying on a number of levels.




    I asked the same question a few pages back. A few people on here responded to say that the Parliament could sign these things. So I don't know


  • #2644
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,789 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Leaving the EU without a deal apparently is illegal as it contravenes the UK's own withdrawal act, unless the parliament expressly legislates for it (which it hasn't and proabably won't)

    Seemingly the no-deal default isn't the default after all.

    Mind blown

    I can't even attempt to explain the legalese details, but the withdrawal act specifically makes provisions for the Good Friday agreement and no hard border...which makes it illegal to leave without a deal which would result in such a border.

    Better explanation in this link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEk9sDbK8D0

    The relevant bit of the withdrawal act here:
    Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements

    (1)In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—
    (a)act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and
    (b)have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

    (2)Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which—
    (a)diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
    (b)create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.

    quoted from here:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted


  • #2645
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    UKGov was the institution which proposed, negotiated and accepted, the backstop in the first place - it's hardly IRGov's problem if UKGov decides to go back on their commitment.
    Not so. Originally there was a mutual aspiration between the UK and RoI to keep the border "open" (which still exists)
    It developed into an Irish threat to veto any Withdrawal Agreement, which threat Barnier encouraged. May's weak response was to incorporate the Irish demands into the agreement as "The Irish Protocol".
    But as we know, she has been unable to persuade the UK parliament to accept her deal. Too many of them understood that it would mean leaving NI behind after Brexit, still under the control of EU customs and border arrangements. The recent Strasbourg instrument introduced the possibility that this control might be time limited, but "might" proved to be a bit too weasely.


  • #2646
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I asked the same question a few pages back. A few people on here responded to say that the Parliament could sign these things. So I don't know

    I’m assuming nothing anymore. Presumably the mechanism to extend the leave date beyond next Friday is routine, but who can say for definite some other legal spanner won’t be thrown in the works? A case of watch this space seems to be the state of play.


  • Advertisement
  • #2647
    fash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭fash


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Well the problem is we owe a lot of our own prosperity not to the UK but our membership of the EU. We have to choose either the EU or the UK if the UK wants to diverge from the EU. So we can choose to come to a agreement with the UK and cut ourselves off from the EU, which all projections show, I believe, will be worse for us than the UK leaving the EU with no-deal.

    So our choice will be do we stay with the EU or the UK when the EU will be a better choice economically. What would your choice be?

    It goes further than that - the treatment of Ireland by the UK and the EU during this process should be considered - the UK has continued to threaten to economically cripple and starve Ireland into submission and has used every resource at its disposal to have the EU and other European countries throw Ireland under a bus. Not only that but they entirely expected that to work and have been astonished to find that it did not.

    The EU and European countries meanwhile have made certain that Ireland, its interests and peace on the island remain central to this process.

    And after all that - we should do the bidding of the UK!!?
    Have you learnt nothing from the last 900 years of history?

    Edit: that last sentence was not for Enzokk - but rather at the person he was responding to.


  • #2648
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    You do know that the UK agreed to the "backstop" a long time ago. You know that? It's not something that was unilaterally demanded by "Coveney/Varadkar"
    Nope. May allowed it into the text of her proposed deal, which proved to be a tactical mistake, because it meant she could not get her deal past the parliament.
    If and when the UK parliament votes to accept her deal, then you can say "the UK has agreed to the backstop". Providing it is still in the deal at the time.


    Which brings us to the oft overlooked fact that the Irish govt. could withdraw its insistence on the backstop tomorrow, and settle for a soft border instead.
    The EU side would immediately modify the WA, and the UK would then vote for it. The end result would be a totally frictionless border for the next 2 years of transition period, and a very soft border after that (because free trade agreement)
    However that would require Varadkar and Coveney doing a U-turn, and admitting they were wrong all along. Its a political log jam.


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Your Belfast court case is irrelevant. Basically that said that that court had no power to intervene to prevent a political decision. No more than that. Do you not understand that?
    You're just wrong. I linked to the case and explained it to you earlier, but you refuse to understand.
    As they say, "You can lead a horse to water..."


  • #2649
    Patser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,367 ✭✭✭Patser


    This is just getting ridiculous.

    Petition to revoke is now most signed petition even in UK, above 4 million and still climbing.

    Potentially largest protest March in UK history assembling in London.

    Weakest PM in UK history on her last legs and in verge of being ousted.

    And leader of Opposition, who's party supports the revokation of article 50, decides this is a good time to launch a local election campaign 100 miles away - instead of being front and centre of an alternative

    https://www.heart.co.uk/northlancs/news/local/corbyn-in-morecambe-for-campaign-launch/

    It really is pathetic, almost Oscar Wildeish 'To have one poor leader is unfortunate, to have 2 smacks of carelessness'. And still the Lib Dems or TIG or any viable 3rd option can't gain ground.

    FPTP is terrible.


  • #2650
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    fash wrote: »
    The EU and European countries meanwhile have made certain that Ireland, its interests and peace on the island remain central to this process.
    That remains to be seen.

    They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
    Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.


  • #2651
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    peasant wrote: »
    Leaving the EU without a deal apparently is illegal as it contravenes the UK's own withdrawal act, unless the parliament expressly legislates for it (which it hasn't and proabably won't)

    Seemingly the no-deal default isn't the default after all.

    Mind blown

    I can't even attempt to explain the legalese details, but the withdrawal act specifically makes provisions for the Good Friday agreement and no hard border...which makes it illegal to leave without a deal which would result in such a border.

    Better explanation in this link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEk9sDbK8D0

    The relevant bit of the withdrawal act here:



    quoted from here:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted


    My wording is going to be clumsy here. The UK can leave without a deal but there will be some arrangements that will ensure that there is no border between Ireland and NI. At least that is still my feeling on it if it does come down to no-deal. The big loser will be the DUP, they will be "cut-off" from the mainland and there will be a new election soon after and in all likelihood they will lose their influence they have at the moment.


  • Advertisement
  • #2652
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Patser wrote: »
    This is just getting ridiculous.

    Petition to revoke is now most signed petition even in UK, above 4 million and still climbing.
    Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.


  • #2653
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Enzokk wrote: »
    My wording is going to be clumsy here. The UK can leave without a deal but there will be some arrangements that will ensure that there is no border between Ireland and NI. At least that is still my feeling on it if it does come down to no-deal. The big loser will be the DUP, they will be "cut-off" from the mainland and there will be a new election soon after and in all likelihood they will lose their influence they have at the moment.
    Would these soft border "arrangements" be any different to those proposed by the UK for last few years? (Technology, pre-clearance etc..)


    In fact the DUP would not be cut off by a soft border, and their sovereignty would be unaffected; that is the whole point.


  • #2654
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    recedite wrote: »
    Nope. May allowed it into the text of her proposed deal, which proved to be a tactical mistake, because it meant she could not get her deal past the parliament.

    Britain negotiated the UK wide backstop.

    They didn't let it in. They demanded it.

    The NI only backstop might have gotten past parliament but it couldn't get past the DUP. This is why May had to go back and try and get the backstop changed.


  • #2655
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    recedite wrote: »
    Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.

    I disagree. 14 million woukd be enough as that exceeds the ref vote in favour of Brexit.


  • #2656
    fash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭fash


    recedite wrote: »
    That remains to be seen.

    They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
    Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.
    If the UK fails to come up with a realistic legal means of ensuring no hard border and leaves- then the fault will remain with the UK. If I put a gun on your hand, force the gun into your mouth and force you to pull the trigger- that doesn't mean you commit suicide - even if it was your finger that pulled the trigger.
    And a continuing no deal until the UK (or whatever remains of it) accepts that - especially one where Ireland can sufficiently influence the US to ensure that there is no US-UK FTA without an NI backstop is by far Ireland's second best option.


  • #2657
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    recedite wrote: »
    That remains to be seen.

    They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
    Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.

    They have not. But it is clear that leaving the EU means you lose the advantages linked with membership. Why this has to be pointed out I do not know.


  • #2658
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    recedite wrote: »
    Which brings us to the oft overlooked fact that the Irish govt. could withdraw its insistence on the backstop tomorrow, and settle for a soft border instead.

    Because the UK has been so good at keeping it's word up until now. In fact drop all agreements, let's just spit and shake on it, that'll sort it.


  • #2659
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,300 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    recedite wrote: »
    Which brings us to the oft overlooked fact that the Irish govt. could withdraw its insistence on the backstop tomorrow, and settle for a soft border instead.
    The EU side would immediately modify the WA, and the UK would then vote for it. The end result would be a totally frictionless border for the next 2 years of transition period, and a very soft border after that (because free trade agreement)

    Give us an example of a "very soft border" somewhere that'll work between NI and the RoI, bearing in mind that so far, you've cited examples of two hard borders between the EU and two countries that have free movement of people (specifically excluded by the UK).

    Oh, and again, give us an example of a "very soft border" that doesn't rely on new, targettable hard infrastructure, specifically prohibed by the UK's leglistation.


  • #2660
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,789 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Enzokk wrote: »
    My wording is going to be clumsy here. The UK can leave without a deal but there will be some arrangements ...

    But that would mean that the UK parliament would have to specifically legislate for this no-deal arrangement, which

    a) they haven't yet and most likely won't
    b) means that the no-deal "default" isn't the default and illegal


  • #2661
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    recedite wrote: »
    That remains to be seen.

    They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
    Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.

    How on earth has it not got through to you that the UK's OWN red lines have made it difficult for them. The UK could have left at any point after article 50.


  • Advertisement
  • #2662
    Patser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,367 ✭✭✭Patser


    recedite wrote: »
    Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.

    Interesting concept - all ideas must be unanimous, including children and infants of all ages - for said idea to be considered. Simply breaking records is not enough to stir even the attention of Countrys Leadership or indeed want to be Leader, absolutely. every. single. person in that country must be onside.


    Edit: just to add, maybe you're on to something as I can't find any mention of said march on BBC website today

    Edit edit : and it just popped up now as headline


  • #2663
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    Give us an example of a "very soft border" somewhere that'll work between NI and the RoI, bearing in mind that so far, you've cited examples of two hard borders between the EU and two countries that have free movement of people (specifically excluded by the UK).

    Oh, and again, give us an example of a "very soft border" that doesn't rely on new, targettable hard infrastructure, specifically prohibed by the UK's leglistation.
    So you dismiss Norway and Switzerland because they have "free movement of people". Are you not aware that Ireland and UK have always had free movement of people, a freedom going right back to the beginning of time?
    Codified in modern times as the CTA.


    Your youtube guy who claims any kind of physical border controls are specifically prohibited by UK legislation is wrong. It says
    Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which...
    That is not the same as "prohibiting" something.


  • #2664
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    recedite wrote: »
    Would these soft border "arrangements" be any different to those proposed by the UK for last few years? (Technology, pre-clearance etc..)


    In fact the DUP would not be cut off by a soft border, and their sovereignty would be unaffected; that is the whole point.


    Nope, they would be the backstop that was initially proposed, with checks on the ports and none between NI and Ireland. That would effectively mean Northern Ireland is still in the EU. The UK has committed to not putting any new infrastructure on the border that was not there at the time of the referendum and the only way to ensure that is to not change the arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland as they are currently.

    peasant wrote: »
    But that would mean that the UK parliament would have to specifically legislate for this no-deal arrangement, which

    a) they haven't yet and most likely won't
    b) means that the no-deal "default" isn't the default and illegal


    I don't know what would need to happen. Did the UK parliament have a vote on the GFA and did they legislate for that? I don't know if they did as I cannot find anything, if the government of the day signed the agreement on behalf of the UK surely this could happen again?


  • #2665
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Patser wrote: »
    Interesting concept - all ideas must be unanimous, including children and infants of all ages .
    Stop being facetious. I'm pointing out that 4 million out of 66 million is not a significant amount.


  • #2666
    20silkcut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,739 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    https://youtu.be/lEk9sDbK8D0


    This link is worth a look it explains that no deal basically can’t happen.

    No deal has to be legislated in parliament. (Good luck with that)
    The EU can’t kick a member out against its wishes.
    If it’s not legislated in parliament then that’s against their wishes


  • #2667
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    recedite wrote: »
    You're just wrong. I linked to the case and explained it to you earlier, but you refuse to understand.
    As they say, "You can lead a horse to water..."


    No. You are just being silly now. I will make one more attempt. After that, there is no point.



    Answer me this. Lets consider a hypothetical situation. If the UK had signed an agreement with Ireland, lets say we call it the "Great Thursday agreement" which said that there would be All-island cooperation and explicitly no borders, would that have given a court in Belfast the authority to prevent the UK Parliament from withdrawing from the EU?


    You know, like a hypothetical case if the UK had signed a common aviation agreement to regulate and allow air traffic between EU and some non-EU countries. I mean if they had signed an agreement, it would have prevented Brexit? No? Therefore no such agreement was signed? Am I doing it right?



    Or, say, a hypothetical scenario where the UK had signed up to be part of a greater union? Maybe with some other countries in Europe. Obviously if they had signed such an agreement, it would mean that a little court in Belfast could prevent the British Parliament from exercising their prerogative powers? So obviously, that never happened did it?


    Do you get it yet? The UK Parliament has sovereign right to withdraw from whatever they want. simple as that. Court case said it could not stop them. Simple as that. You are free to take from that that there was no GFA. That can be your "belief" and you can believe it to be true if you want. #hannonirishhistory


  • #2668
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    recedite wrote: »
    So you dismiss Norway and Switzerland because they have "free movement of people". Are you not aware that Ireland and UK have always had free movement of people, a freedom going right back to the beginning of time?
    Codified in modern times as the CTA.

    He is dismissing it because they have free movement of people and there is still checks that are being carried out so the border is not soft. Having free movement is not the same as a soft border.

    recedite wrote: »
    Your youtube guy who claims any kind of physical border controls are specifically prohibited by UK legislation is wrong. It saysThat is not the same as "prohibiting" something.


    It says they are not allowed to authorise new regulations that create new border arrangements. So I read it as they cannot create a deal that makes this happen and actually not that it cannot happen. But this is the first time I see it and I am sure it has been scrutinized by legal eagles before who has looked at it in Ireland, the EU and the UK.


  • #2669
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Nope, they would be the backstop that was initially proposed, with checks on the ports and none between NI and Ireland. That would effectively mean Northern Ireland is still in the EU. The UK has committed to not putting any new infrastructure on the border that was not there at the time of the referendum and the only way to ensure that is to not change the arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland as they are currently.
    If the UK and NI leaves without a deal, how is the EU going to exert this level of control over a part of the UK and NI, against the will of its people?


    The only commitment made to the backstop by T. May was within her proposed deal, which as we know was rejected by parliament.


  • #2670
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    20silkcut wrote: »
    The EU can’t kick a member out against its wishes.


    Haven't looked at your link but the EU is not kicking out the UK.


    UK served notice to withdraw and hasn't revoked that notice.


  • Advertisement
  • #2671
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    recedite wrote: »
    The only commitment made to the backstop by T. May was within her proposed deal, which as we know was rejected by parliament.


    No it was signed.


    Hence after the U-turn - "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".


    Can the EU force the UK to honour it? No. That doesn't mean they have to continue on as if nothing happened.


    If you give your mate 20 quid down the pub and he doesn't pay you back, is there anything you can do about it? No. But you might remember it the next time he rings you up and says "hey, will you give me a hand next week with this thing" .


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement