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; } } }

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Any posts about the Syrian/African/Middle Eastern refugee situation will be deleted. There are threads for this in various parts of Boards.ie. This thread is not one of them. A post has been deleted.

Joe_ Public

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/ireland-is-giving-quiet-backing-for-boris-johnson-election-win-38653841.html

There's nothing really wrong with that, just i find it unfortunate that the interests of this country could be argued to be aligned with those of Boris Johnson and his right wing tory government. That just cant feel right to me. What leo varadkar says or thinks isnt going to influence the outcome of the UK election in any significant way, other than maybe with irish residents there, but this kind of vaguely tacit endorsement for the pm just doesnt sit right with me.

[Deleted User]

Joe_ Public wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/ireland-is-giving-quiet-backing-for-boris-johnson-election-win-38653841.html

There's nothing really wrong with that, just i find it unfortunate that the interests of this country could be argued to be aligned with those of Boris Johnson and his right wing tory government. That just cant feel right to me. What leo varadkar says or thinks isnt going to influence the outcome of the UK election in any significant way, other than maybe with irish residents there, but this kind of vaguely tacit endorsement for the pm just doesnt sit right with me.

It's probably more to do with Labour's plans to renegotiate and have a second referendum that is pushing other EU leaders into hoping Boris wins, they know that the Lib Dems have no real chance at all.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's probably more to do with Labour's plans to renegotiate and have a second referendum that is pushing other EU leaders into hoping Boris wins, they know that the Lib Dems have no real chance at all.

Absolutely, i mean i totally get where he's coming from, he believes thats in Ireland's interests so I'm not going to hammer him for that. Only thing is he says he's not going to comment on another countrys election and then basically says please vote boris. That bit i'd have an issue with.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You claim that the frontstop is "lesser" than the backstop, how so? Putting the consent issue to one side, how is the frontstop lesser than the backstop? Which of the objectives of the backstop does the frontstop fail to deliver?

When the NI only backstop was first proposed, had the UK government agreed to it on the condition that there would have to be a consent mechanism for NI, then we would have said fine and moved on. It was the UK that said that the NI only backstop was unacceptable, they were entirely uninterested in the consent of NI at the time.

The frontstop being better or worse than the backstop is really a matter of opinion. In my opinion it is better as the new arangement is no longer merely an insurance policy, and one which would have to be replaced at some point, it is the new permenant arangement that will be put in place. It is the first part of the future relationship between the EU and the UK.

No I'm afraid the new border arrangement is inferior to the previous deal on an objective basis. Under the previous agreement the only way a border could be introduced would have been for the UK to break an international agreement. They could not legally and unilaterally introduce a border.

Under the new agreement it comes down to a vote on one side of the border with no comeback from the South.

It is very hard to argue that the new agreement is better than the old one.

There's also the aspect that Ireland would have had free trade in goods with the whole of the UK as the old backstop removed both the border with the North and the border down the Irish sea. Brexiteers in the UK did not like this as it meant the whole of the UK would be subject to Brussels red tape for an indefinite period.

Leroy42

But the UK were willing to break an international treaty with No Deal. What makes you think they wouldn't simply threaten that again towards the end of the TP to force concessions on a Trade agreement?

The front stop means the UK have fully accepted that NI cannot be used as a bargaining chip and its status has effectively been removed from future trade negotiations.

Of course there is the possibility that NI will vote to leave the EU at some point, but we at least have far more strategic power v NI that the UK as a whole.

And Brexit itself shows that Ireland has no control over the UK and how its citizens will act

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

No I'm afraid the new border arrangement is inferior to the previous deal on an objective basis. Under the previous agreement the only way a border could be introduced would have been for the UK to break an international agreement. They could not legally and unilaterally introduce a border.

Under the new agreement it comes down to a vote on one side of the border with no comeback from the South.

It is very hard to argue that the new agreement is better than the old one.

There's also the aspect that Ireland would have had free trade in goods with the whole of the UK as the old backstop removed both the border with the North and the border down the Irish sea. Brexiteers in the UK did not like this as it meant the whole of the UK would be subject to Brussels red tape for an indefinite period.

The future of Ireland is in the hands of the people of Ireland. That is a good solution for me. I do not believe for a second that the NI assembly will ever vote for a hard border on this island. Therefore in place of a temporary insurance policy that had to be replaced, we now have a permenant workable solution that never needs to be replaced. That is objectivly better if you ask me.

As for the east west aspect, the future trade relationship between Ireland and the UK is a matter to be worked out in the trade deal, not the WA. The UK staying in the Single Market and Customs Union is certainly in Irelands interest but the backstop did not deliver this as a permenant solution. The backstop could not have prevented GB diverging from the EU, clearly GB does not need to be part of a backstop for the objectives of the backstop to be met.

It was never Ireland's intention to use the border issue to trap the UK, that was merely brexiter propaganda. Saying now that we have failed to take the opportunity to trap the whole UK in alignment with the EU is nonsence, we were never going to do so in any case.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the UK were willing to break an international treaty with No Deal. What makes you think they wouldn't simply threaten that again towards the end of the TP to force concessions on a Trade agreement?

Do you mean the GFA?

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

Do you mean the GFA?

Yeah. And before you bother getting into a debate about whether it would have broken it, even the UK agreed that the GFA meant no border, a border they were willing to threaten in No Deal.

I think you are failing to understand what was really happening. The UK voted to leave. And with that they said that both CU and SM were gone. They were going to force the entire NI to follow them despite a majority in NI voting to remain. As such they were telling the people of NI, and particularly the Nationalists, that the power sharing, the joint cooperation between UK and RoI was dead.

The EU made it abundantly clear to the UK that it was unacceptable. The UK initially agreed but due to a minority on the HOC, ERG and DUP, but a minority with massive power and influence over TM, they decided to go back on their commitment and threaten both the EU and in particular RoI.

Leo finally got the PM to see sense and provided a solution that gave Ireland and EU what was required and let Johnson act like he had achieved something.

The fare of NI has now been taken out of the hands of the likes of ERG, who care little for it or Ireland.

Those to make the decision will be those effected by it.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The future of Ireland is in the hands of the people of Ireland. That is a good solution for me. I do not believe for a second that the NI assembly will ever vote for a hard border on this island. Therefore in place of a temporary insurance policy that had to be replaced, we now have a permenant workable solution that never needs to be replaced. That is objectivly better if you ask me.

I agree with you that it is unlikely that Stormont would vote this way but it remains a possibility. It is the sort of thing the original backstop was designed to protect against.

As for the east west aspect, the future trade relationship between Ireland and the UK is a matter to be worked out in the trade deal, not the WA. The UK staying in the Single Market and Customs Union is certainly in Irelands interest but the backstop did not deliver this as a permenant solution. The backstop could not have prevented GB diverging from the EU, clearly GB does not need to be part of a backstop for the objectives of the backstop to be met.

Well yes. Under the current deal trade between Ireland and the Uk will come down to whatever the the UK and the EU negotiate during the transition period. But under the old deal that was already sorted and probably better from Ireland's perspective than what will be agreed under the new arrangement. Remember the EU had reservations about extending the customs arrangement to the whole of the UK.

It was never Ireland's intention to use the border issue to trap the UK, that was merely brexiter propaganda. Saying now that we have failed to take the opportunity to trap the whole UK in alignment with the EU is nonsence, we were never going to do so in any case.

But the old backstop was indeed a trap for the UK, one that worked in Ireland's favor. The problem was that it was too good to be true. It wasn''t realistic and we had to back down over it in the end.

Irish Praetorian

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's a piece of pre-referendum propoganda that first appeared in 2016! It's one of the early examples of Brexiteers invoking Schrödinger's Immigrant - the one undercutting honest English labourers to work for less than £30 a week while simultaneously bidding up house prices to drive the same Englishman out of the property market.

I'm not sure that I would really take you to task on much of your wider point, but the 'Schrödinger's Immigrant' meme is actually a pet peeve of mine. In it's more pure form it would only be truthful if there had been a single migrant to whichever country in question over whatever time period one chooses - and whatever one might make about differing perceptions it, that is clearly not the case.

Now more specifically, this particular meme is a folly because it doesn't have any more depth to it than worker/welfare dependant. In reality, as often made clear by commentators like Owen Jones, a lot of modern day welfare goes to people in employment, who are to paraphrase him 'working to earn their poverty'. As an example, you might have a migrant working a low paid job who qualifies for things like Income Support, or Housing Benefit or Council Tax support. Now you don't need to be some rabid UKIPy type to observe that whatever the merits of such programmes, they do place a burden on the public purse, regardless of how one thinks that money may or may not come back in taxation.

Now that of course does raise the other half of the issue which is the burden on services/accommodation arising from a migrant population. Now again, I'm not sure where this dichotomy emerged that you could only have a high paid productive worker inflating the property market or an unemployed dependent welfare recipient who has a purely monetary cost, but as it turns out even the less well off need places to live. As it happens, it would seem that landlords and other property holders don't actually mind so much if the money they get is from a highly paid career or from the state coffers. So even if our hypothetical migrant is unemployed they are still going to be putting pressure on the housing sector, medical services and local infrastructure. You can even see more appalling cases where unscrupulous landlords accept rent from large numbers of (often non EEA) workers who live in appalling conditions but club together to furnish the rent.

Now whilst the upshot of all this is that I think one can easily rubbish the Schroedinger's Migrant meme, to be fair I think there is also a lot to be said about the circumstances that have arisen in our society wherein so many in paid employment still need the support of the state, and what has happened with our property sector to leave it so expensive. My only one conclusion in that regard would be, I don't think it has much at all to do with being in/out of the EU.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree with you that it is unlikely that Stormont would vote this way but it remains a possibility. It is the sort of thing the original backstop was designed to protect against.

The original backstop was not designed to protect against the people of NI deciding that they wanted to repudiate the GFA and erect a hard border on this island. It was designed to protect the GFA and prevent the erection of a hard border on this island due to the British decision to leave the EU. The new arangement succeeds in doing this.

Well yes. Under the current deal trade between Ireland and the Uk will come down to whatever the the UK and the EU negotiate during the transition period. But under the old deal that was already sorted and probably better from Ireland's perspective than what will be agreed under the new arrangement. Remember the EU had reservations about extending the customs arrangement to the whole of the UK.

It was not sorted. The backstop was a fallback, not the settled future relationship. It could not have been the permenant future relationship and if it ever came into operation, it was always going to be replaced. Lets not play silly buggers over what the backstop was, no one here is so ill-informed as to fall for this revisionism.

But the old backstop was indeed a trap for the UK, one that worked in Ireland's favor. The problem was that it was too good to be true. It wasn''t realistic and we had to back down over it in the end.

How can you back down over something you never demanded in the first place?

The backstop was not a trap, that was merely propoganda, please stop spreading misinformation. It was the British government themselves that wanted the backstop extended to the whole UK, that was never an issue that Ireland or the EU pushed, indeed it was a big concession to the UK.

An NI only solution is what the EU wanted in the first place, how is getting what you want "backing down"?

quokula

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's probably more to do with Labour's plans to renegotiate and have a second referendum that is pushing other EU leaders into hoping Boris wins, they know that the Lib Dems have no real chance at all.

I don’t quite understand that. Sure, the withdrawal agreement protects Ireland’s interests as well as possible given the Tory red lines and it’s certainly significantly better than no deal.

But a Labour EFTA-style deal would be significantly better for Ireland, and a second referendum with the strong possibility of remain would be better still.

Bit cynical

quokula wrote: »

But a Labour EFTA-style deal would be significantly better for Ireland, and a second referendum with the strong possibility of remain would be better still.

Better for Ireland but from a wider EU perspective problematical because Corbyn would want a say in the rules applied (unlike say Norway) and also control over immigration from the EU.

RobMc59

quokula wrote: »

I don’t quite understand that. Sure, the withdrawal agreement protects Ireland’s interests as well as possible given the Tory red lines and it’s certainly significantly better than no deal.

But a Labour EFTA-style deal would be significantly better for Ireland, and a second referendum with the strong possibility of remain would be better still.

I fully agree with your assessment.
I'd also like to add that this perception that Johnson getting his way is somehow more in Ireland's interests is mistaken imo.If he gets his way,things won't stop there,there is every possibility that the UK will become a destabilising rogue state,run by even more right wing extremists.
Surely a 2nd referendum or art 50 revoke would be better for Europe than a Britain reeling from its self inflicted wounds.Who knows what could happen in the event of a political vacuum caused by the inevitable failure of Johnson's master plan for Britain.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

Better for Ireland but from a wider EU perspective problematical because Corbyn would want a say in the rules applied (unlike say Norway) and also control over immigration from the EU.

All of the indications coming out of Brussels are that the EU have zero intention of negotiating another WA with Corbyn.

(With good reason...........there's no guarantee he could even get it through Parliament and it being voted down would be utterly shambolic).

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The original backstop was not designed to protect against the people of NI deciding that they wanted to repudiate the GFA and erect a hard border on this island. It was designed to protect the GFA and prevent the erection of a hard border on this island due to the British decision to leave the EU. The new arangement succeeds in doing this.

Not specifically the people of NI but they would have been one of the groups that would have been prevented from introducing a border under the original WA backstop and we don't want a border or at least I thought we did not.

It was not sorted. The backstop was a fallback, not the settled future relationship. It could not have been the permenant future relationship and if it ever came into operation, it was always going to be replaced. Lets not play silly buggers over what the backstop was, no one here is so ill-informed as to fall for this revisionism.

It was an insurance policy that prevented a hard border being introduced. Yes it could be replaced but only with something else that also prevented a hard border.

How can you back down over something you never demanded in the first place?

The backstop was not a trap, that was merely propoganda, please stop spreading misinformation. It was the British government themselves that wanted the backstop extended to the whole UK, that was never an issue that Ireland or the EU pushed, indeed it was a big concession to the UK.

An NI only solution is what the EU wanted in the first place, how is getting what you want "backing down"?

I say it is backing down because what was once a legally watertight insurance against any unilateral imposition of a border has been replaced with something that specifically allows for the unilateral imposition of a border.

That said, I have always thought that the original backstop was unrealistic and therefore some form of backing down would be necessary. The worst thing would have been to continue to insist on the original backstop when it was clearly dead in the water.

Capt'n Midnight

quokula wrote: »

I don’t quite understand that. Sure, the withdrawal agreement protects Ireland’s interests as well as possible given the Tory red lines and it’s certainly significantly better than no deal.

But a Labour EFTA-style deal would be significantly better for Ireland, and a second referendum with the strong possibility of remain would be better still.

The last time we had a hard border three thousand people died.

Any deal that can use Stormont as a workaround to the EU and Westminster not accepting unilateral changes by the other beats a hard border.

It's a good deal on a scale that starts at being dead in a ditch or disappeared in a bog.

On an economic scale it's 2/3rds of the way to hard Brexit in the short term and provides nothing long term except the right to start Free Trade negotiations with the EU.

This deal is just a Buy In for a high stakes poker game with professional poker players.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

All of the indications coming out of Brussels are that the EU have zero intention of negotiating another WA with Corbyn.

(With good reason...........there's no guarantee he could even get it through Parliament and it being voted down would be utterly shambolic).

If, magically, Lab had a decent majority, and/or a Brexit deal pact with the Lib Dems and SNP leading to a significant majority, then they could get a deal through. In that scenario, the deal negotiated would be a soft Brexit which is very much in the EU's interest.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If, magically, Lab had a decent majority, and/or a Brexit deal pact with the Lib Dems and SNP leading to a significant majority, then they could get a deal through. In that scenario, the deal negotiated would be a soft Brexit which is very much in the EU's interest.

Would the EU even take that risk though? It would have to be a 99% certainty that it could get through Parliament.....if it was at 60-40 or 50-50, there's not a hope they'd negotiate anything with him.

And could the Lib Dems vote for any Brexit deal? Corbyn is talking about a new WA if he has an overall majority.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Would the EU even take that risk though? It would have to be a 99% certainty that it could get through Parliament.....if it was at 60-40 or 50-50, there's not a hope they'd negotiate anything with him.

Well, what have they to lose? If a renegotiated deal fails to get through it would probably precipitate a referendum. Or a GE. Failing that, another extension. Negotiating a softer Brexit whether it gets through or not shouldn't cause any collateral damage to the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Bit cynical wrote: »

Better for Ireland but from a wider EU perspective problematical because Corbyn would want a say in the rules applied (unlike say Norway) and also control over immigration from the EU.

Oh look, unicorns.

Norway accepts the four freedoms of movement of goods, services, capital and people.

Norway has no say in EU rules.

Norway pays the same per capita as the UK does

Norway means keeping the European Court of Human Rights and swapping the European Court of Justice with the EFTA court.

Norway has a hard border but there's now the Stormont compromise so after three years that part of EFTA membership is no longer such a huge issue.

What the UK would get in return is that Norway controls raw materials, food and energy of which they export a lot.

UK has already handed over fishing rights to the Faroe Islands.

UK fuel exports match imports. So no use. And besides Scotland could leave taking all that oil and gas.

UK imports energy. And besides Scotland could leave taking all that hydro and wind.

UK agri exports ?
Leaving the Common Agricultural Policy will mean the UK will need to match the £3Bn that UK farmers got from the EU otherwise they will have to ramp up food imports.
And besides Scotland could leave taking all that food production.

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

And could the Lib Dems vote for any Brexit deal? Corbyn is talking about a new WA if he has an overall majority.

Yes, if (and it's a big if) Labour and the Lib Dems got enough seats to form a viable coalition, I firmly believe that the Lib Dems would vote for a Brexit deal with the proviso of a 2nd referendum that had the choices of Deal and Remain on the ballot. It would probably be the main thing the two parties could agree on.

Joe_ Public

If eu said to labour government no deal other than one already agreed, what other choice would there be for parliament other than pass it and then have referendum? No deal not an option. I do suspect eu would facilitate renegotiation, if only to amend pol decl, but its not as if they have to i dont think.

briany

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If eu said to labour government no deal other than one already agreed, what other choice would there be for parliament other than pass it and then have referendum? No deal not an option. I do suspect eu would facilitate renegotiation, if only to amend pol decl, but its not as if they have to i dont think.

All Corbyn would have to do would be to get around a table with the EU people and add some nice flowery language about jobs, protecting workers rights and the most vulnerable in society. No material changes, really, but a nice coat of red paint. The EU would probably roll their eyes and sigh about having to do this, but I think they'd eventually humour Corbyn.

Bit cynical

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If eu said to labour government no deal other than one already agreed, what other choice would there be for parliament other than pass it and then have referendum? No deal not an option. I do suspect eu would facilitate renegotiation, if only to amend pol decl, but its not as if they have to i dont think.

A way to ensure that the UK leaves with the currently negotiated deal would for one EU government to refuse to extend the deadline beyond the end of January. If Labour got in, there would not be time to hold a referendum and they would have to leave with the deal.

GM228

Bit cynical wrote: »

A way to ensure that the UK leaves with the currently negotiated deal would for one EU government to refuse to extend the deadline beyond the end of January. If Labour got in, there would not be time to hold a referendum and they would have to leave with the deal.

Just because any potential further extension may be refused (Tusk left the impression there will be no more extensions) does not mean they will leave with the current deal, nothing is guaranteed, they could revoke or still have no deal.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

All Corbyn would have to do would be to get around a table with the EU people and add some nice flowery language about jobs, protecting workers rights and the most vulnerable in society. No material changes, really, but a nice coat of red paint. The EU would probably roll their eyes and sigh about having to do this, but I think they'd eventually humour Corbyn.

Corbyn is in favour of a customs union.

Joe_ Public

Bit cynical wrote: »

A way to ensure that the UK leaves with the currently negotiated deal would for one EU government to refuse to extend the deadline beyond the end of January. If Labour got in, there would not be time to hold a referendum and they would have to leave with the deal.

Chances of extension to hold public vote: 100 per cent.

briany

Bit cynical wrote: »

A way to ensure that the UK leaves with the currently negotiated deal would for one EU government to refuse to extend the deadline beyond the end of January. If Labour got in, there would not be time to hold a referendum and they would have to leave with the deal.

I hope this is a point regularly made to Corbyn in interviews from now until GE day. He could be making a lot of promises on Brexit where the capacity to deliver upon them isn't really in his hands.