Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Patser · 23-03-2019 01:42PM

recedite wrote: »

Stop being facetious. I'm pointing out that 4 million out of 66 million is not a significant amount.

And I was pointing out that a record breaking petition (and possibly march) for an alternative should be mana from heaven from the Man that wants to be the alternative to the PM, not attendance at a local Party launch in a small seaside town hundreds of miles away.

4 million signatures (and rising) is not inconsequential in a time when there are few clearly accepted alternatives

Enzokk · 23-03-2019 01:44PM

20silkcut wrote: »

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

The UK has given their indication that they want to leave the EU with the article 50 letter. That is the UK's decision and they are not being kicked out of the EU against their wishes, they started the process.

As for legislating for no-deal, that is up to the UK. If after 12 April they leave without a deal is has nothing to do with the EU on whether there is legislation in the UK keeping them in the EU. That is the same as the current change in date, the EU has agreed to it but the UK has not so their leave date is still 29th March and if they don't change it they are legally out of the EU as that is what the Withdrawal Act has as its date.

So I assume they mean it is illegal for UK politicians in UK law but as long as they have legally followed the procedure as set out in the EU treaties to leave the EU will consider them to have left. The only way to get back into the EU again after the 12th April (if they get the SI in place) would be to reapply for membership.

recedite wrote: »

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.

NI voted to remain so I don't see that argument holding any water. As for the rest, to be honest no-one has an idea what will happen if her deal doesn't pass. I only have hopes on what will happen in the case of no-deal and that is a agreement between the EU and UK to not throw the GFA in the fire. This can only mean one thing and it is a Irish Sea border.

recedite · 23-03-2019 01:49PM

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

You're conflating a lot of different ideas here. Those borders are "soft" IMO. The border between South Korea and NK is "hard".
Its true, a lot of these definitions are open to interpretation.

But be wary when you see EU reassurance of a future "open border" protecting the single market, because it can mean anything.

As I pointed out, Irish citizens will still have full freedom of movement across the border, and eastwards across to Britain, because the UK has no intention of revoking the CTA. That would apply even if there were trade tariffs and lorries were being checked. So exactly the same as the situation with Norway and Switzerland.

If you buy Norwegian salmon in your supermarket, a tariff has been paid on that when it entered the single market.

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

No it does not say that.
It says "Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations..."
That is effectively a neutral position.

Shelga · 23-03-2019 01:54PM

20silkcut wrote: »

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

Doesn’t this go against everything we’ve been told over the last 3 years? So if parliament don’t explicitly vote to give permission for no deal, UK would just stay in the EU forever and ever?

Maybe someone should tell the other 27 heads of state in the EU, as none of them seem to be aware of this.

Junkyard Tom · 23-03-2019 02:01PM

recedite wrote: »

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?

A clear majority in the north didn't want to leave the EU and a clear majority do not want a border of any sort.

peasant · 23-03-2019 02:06PM

Shelga wrote: »

Doesn’t this go against everything we’ve been told over the last 3 years? So if parliament don’t explicitly vote to give permission for no deal, UK would just stay in the EU forever and ever?

Maybe someone should tell the other 27 heads of state in the EU, as none of them seem to be aware of this.

As I understand it, they probably still would just leave without a deal...but by doing so they would commit an illegal act (acc. to UK law). Which in real terms is neither here nor there, except for one problem...corporations (eg Nissan, Honda, big pharma) and even whole countries could sue them until their pockets are empty.

iguana · 23-03-2019 02:06PM

Labour tweeted yesterday looking for people with no plans for this weekend to help them canvass. Hasn't gone down too well with the Put it to the People marchers.

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1109155782287740928

20silkcut · 23-03-2019 02:06PM

Shelga wrote: »

Doesn’t this go against everything we’ve been told over the last 3 years? So if parliament don’t explicitly vote to give permission for no deal, UK would just stay in the EU forever and ever?

Maybe someone should tell the other 27 heads of state in the EU, as none of them seem to be aware of this.

This Youtuber is wrong. No deal was effectively legislated and leaving their expressed wish when they activated article 50 two years ago.

bob mcbob · 23-03-2019 02:08PM

The leader of the SNP was verbally abused by leave supporters when leaving parliament during the week.

He was called "A traitor to England"

Says it all really

recedite · 23-03-2019 02:09PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

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?

Yes it would, but the GFA did not dispose of the border.
On the contrary, the GFA fully legitimised the border.
Prior to the GFA, the RoI had an unresolved "aspirational" claim on the territory of the whole island, which we formally rescinded at the time.
In case you have forgotten, that required a referendum. The nineteenth.

Also your insistence that a Belfast court does not have sufficient jurisdiction within the British system is nonsense. A case heard in Belfast can go all the way up to the UK Supreme Court, which can move to Belfast (and has done).

peasant · 23-03-2019 02:15PM

20silkcut wrote: »

This Youtuber is wrong. No deal was effectively legislated and leaving their expressed wish when they activated article 50 two years ago.

But the withdrawal act was legislated for later (2018), sort of fleshing out article 50 (a EU law) for local UK law (and making those provisions for the NI/IRL border)

Capt'n Midnight · 23-03-2019 02:16PM

recedite wrote: »

Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.

Total number of UK Parliamentary electors compared to previous year

England – 38,371,400, a decrease of 0.8%

Wales – 2,230,100, a decrease of 1.4%

Scotland – 3,925,800, a decrease of 0.6%

Northern Ireland – 1,248,400, an increase of 0.5%

The only number that matters is the 40m in England and Wales, get more than 20m of them and the Tories might have to reconsider.

Only joking, what matters is how the local party responds. As long as people aren't defecting to Labour it's all good.

road_high · 23-03-2019 02:17PM

How’s the people’s march going in London?

recedite · 23-03-2019 02:18PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

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" .

It was not ratified by parliament, therefore the UK has not agreed it.
A better analogy is this.. you down the pub and borrow 20 quid, signing a document to say your dad will refund the money.

Junkyard Tom · 23-03-2019 02:21PM

recedite wrote: »

Yes it would, but the GFA did not dispose of the border.

It disposed of security infrastructure which would be required for the reintroduction of a visible border.

Prior to the GFA, the RoI had an unresolved "aspirational" claim on the territory of the whole island, which we formally rescinded at the time.

No it was an actual territorial claim that was diluted to an aspiration. The aspiration remains.

_______________________________________________________________________

Article 3 (1)

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland

_______________________________________________________________________

recedite · 23-03-2019 02:21PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Total number of UK Parliamentary electors compared to previous year

You don't have to be on the UK register of electors to sign an online petition.
You probably don't even have to be in the UK.

Donald Trump · 23-03-2019 02:23PM

recedite wrote: »

Yes it would

Ok. Lets deal with this bit by bit.
Do you think that the Common Aviation agreement was also a figment of someone's imagination?

Because if the UK had signed that, it would surely have also likely prevented exit from the EU?

Because we have established that you believe that signing an international agreement could have prevented the UK from exiting the UK if it meant that the terms of that agreement were not honoured. All it would have taken was for someone to take a case in a court in Belfast (maybe Michael O'Leary) from saying "Hey, this breaks the Common Aviation agreement" and that would have been the end of it using your logic.

Therefore do you believe that the UK did not sign that Common Aviation agreement?

The Rape of Lucretia · 23-03-2019 02:25PM

Patser wrote: »

And I was pointing out that a record breaking petition (and possibly march) for an alternative should be mana from heaven from the Man that wants to be the alternative to the PM, not attendance at a local Party launch in a small seaside town hundreds of miles away.

4 million signatures (and rising) is not inconsequential in a time when there are few clearly accepted alternatives

The 4 million signatures people, and tge final say march people are all part of the problem, not the solution. They are making the same mistake as their MPs - still arguing amongst themselves about what they want. The UK is in political civil war. As a country, and as a parliament. So of course there is chaos, and it is impossible for the EU to strike a real deal. Of course, they did strike a deal - but it is worthless due to the civil war, removing the power from the executive, to implement it.
People are complaining about the commons - but the electorate is no better - all sides are still back fighting the referendum.

Loafing Oaf · 23-03-2019 02:39PM

This guy reckons if TM wants to push the UK over the cliff if and when her deal is conclusively shut down, it will be very difficult to stop her. I wonder is he right.

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

The signs are numerous that she is moving towards accepting no deal as a palatable alternative to her withdrawal plan, should it fall...

Remember, if no deal is to be avoided, it has to be her signature on that letter to Brussels demanding a further delay beyond April 12...

Even a motion of no confidence in the government might not be enough: it triggers a 14-day period that could take us past 12 April.

CelticRambler · 23-03-2019 02:40PM

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.

I am aware of it, and (a) it is not codified - it is a gentleman's agreement, and in (very) recent times, GB has tried to kill it off; but (b) more relevant is the fact the RoI will remain an EU member and as such offers free movement rights to 500million people, none of whom will have the automatic right to cross into the UK at the UK-EU border in Ireland just because Irish citizens do.

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.

I prefer to get my info from Her Majesty's Government rather than YouTube. The relevant legislation states:

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.

Sure, you can argue that "prohibiting" something is not the same as "denying authorisation" but the effect is the same: the UK government has specfically stated that new infrastructure on the border is not allowed.

recedite wrote: »

You're conflating a lot of different ideas here. Those borders are "soft" IMO. The border between South Korea and NK is "hard".
Its true, a lot of these definitions are open to interpretation.

My interpretation of a hard border is one with armed police and customs agents, huge lorry parks, sniffer dogs, carbon dioxide detectors, vehicle x-ray facilities, passport checks, APNR, and a guy who may well invite you to "step out of the vehicle please". In other words, the kind of border between Switzerland and the EU, between Norway and the EU, and between Kent and the EU. You may interpret those as "soft" border arrangements, but I doubt you'll find many people in the border counties of Ireland (north or south) who'd agree with you.

recedite · 23-03-2019 02:41PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It disposed of security infrastructure which would be required for the reintroduction of a visible border.

No it was an actual territorial claim that was diluted to an aspiration. The aspiration remains.

_______________________________________________________________________

Article 3 (1)

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland

_______________________________________________________________________

You're right a UI is still a legitimate aspiration for RoI, but the territorial claim was removed. And a no deal Brexit makes a UI even more likely to happen.

So lets look at your link there. The bits in red.

1. Removal of British Army and RUC security installations already happened. Customs control is not the same thing. We already have smuggling of cigarettes and diesel. And we have Irish customs officers trying to prevent it. The GFA does not prevent customs control. It prevents a militarised border.
2. "Status of NI cannot be changed without consent of its people".
Customs control at an existing border does not change the onstitutional status of NI. Creating a new customs border in the Irish sea, separating off NI from Britain, would be a change to its status.
3. The 3 minor points are red herrings.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-03-2019 02:41PM

recedite wrote: »

You don't have to be on the UK register of electors to sign an online petition.
You probably don't even have to be in the UK.

Oddly enough lots of UK citizens live abroad.

So far the numbers don't look skewed. And it's not as if the Russian bots will be voting to stay.

BBC news
notice any difference between the headline and the first line of the story ?

Brexit march: Thousands join referendum protest

Tens of thousands are marching through central London calling for another EU referendum, as MPs search for a way out of the Brexit impasse.

Meanwhile Tens are marching in the March to Leave

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1109425116545499136

Strazdas · 23-03-2019 02:49PM

road_high wrote: »

How’s the people’s march going in London?

Huge numbers from what I can see. The weather is nice enough and there seems to be hundreds of thousands marching.

Donald Trump · 23-03-2019 02:51PM

recedite wrote: »

It was not ratified by parliament, therefore the UK has not agreed it.
A better analogy is this.. you down the pub and borrow 20 quid, signing a document to say your dad will refund the money.

What are you talking about in fairness.

Do you think that if the UK parliament had ratified it, and then later scrapped it, that somehow that would give Ireland/EU power to stop them scrapping it?

You do a deal with the person sitting in front of you who is there as an official representative of a company. Maybe they are going to do a job for you. Build a house or whatever. You come to an agreement, you sign off. The person goes off, comes back a few weeks later and says "oh yeah, that thing I agreed to. We don't want to do it any more under those terms".
You'd be fully entitled to say "Well that was the deal and the terms. If you want to continue then you can honour them. If not, then you don't get the job".

devnull · 23-03-2019 02:51PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BBC news
notice any difference between the headline and the first line of the story ?

Brexit march: Thousands join referendum protest

Originally the British State TV (lets call them what they are) article was saying that there were 'several thousand' marching, I believe, but they've since changed the first line to reference tens of thousands even if they haven't adjusted the headline itself. A lot of other places are talking about hundreds of thousands.

There's also been talk on the BBC about the numbers of the petition about rescinding article 50 being exaggerated due to the use of bots, which I haven't seen anywhere else. There's now an article saying they're probably not the result of bots, but even suggesting something and then saying it probably isn't true still puts a conspiracy theory out there.

Unfortunately the days of the BBC being balanced are long gone. They will do whatever their paymasters tell them to do. They are about as impartial on Brexit as Fox News are on Trump these days unfortunately.

Charles Babbage · 23-03-2019 02:53PM

recedite wrote: »

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 will of the people of NI is to remain in the EU. How is London going going to exert this level of control over a part of the UK required to thwart their will. The usual stuff I suppose, helicopters, beatings, shooting people on the streets, etc

Strazdas · 23-03-2019 02:55PM

devnull wrote: »

Originally the British State TV (lets call them what they are) article was saying that there were 'several thousand' marching but they've since changed the first line to reference tens of thousands even if they haven't adjusted the headline itself. A lot of other places are talking about hundreds of thousands.

Unfortunately the days of the BBC being balanced are long gone. They will do whatever their paymasters tell them to do. They are about as impartial on Brexit as Fox News are on Trump these days unfortunately.

Agree 100%. Their coverage of Brexit has been a complete and utter disgrace. They have gone AWOL while the country has been hijacked by the hard right.

Headshot · 23-03-2019 02:57PM

devnull wrote: »

Originally the British State TV (lets call them what they are) article was saying that there were 'several thousand' marching but they've since changed the first line to reference tens of thousands even if they haven't adjusted the headline itself. A lot of other places are talking about hundreds of thousands.

Unfortunately the days of the BBC being balanced are long gone. They will do whatever their paymasters tell them to do. They are about as impartial on Brexit as Fox News are on Trump these days unfortunately.

Yup when you have journalist chasing after Bercow that's just a very low point for the BBC

road_high · 23-03-2019 03:02PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Huge numbers from what I can see. The weather is nice enough and there seems to be hundreds of thousands marching.

Yea just see it on Sky news looks like a huge crowd, several of the surrounding feeder streets look thronged

Enzokk · 23-03-2019 03:07PM

road_high wrote: »

Yea just see it on Sky news looks like a huge crowd, several of the surrounding feeder streets look thronged

Here is a link to a Guardian channel on Youtube that seems to have live footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLZRwvR0-mg

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments