Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

37 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

OBJECTION!

 

 

Sustained.

 

Quote

 

Unless I'm mistaken, sometimes =/= never.  Clearly my use of the term falls under the scope of "sometimes".

 

Whether or not they are 'sometimes' considered to be culturally Scandinavian is irrelevant as you were referring to a political entity, not a cultural one.

 

As pointed out in my previous post, yet shamefully ignored.

Edited 19 July 2018 by Buce

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Upheld.

 

 

Whether or not they are 'sometimes' considered to be culturally Scandinavian is irrelevant as you were referring to a political entity, not a cultural one.

 

As pointed out in my previous post, yet shamefully ignored.

 

You're not getting that bloody rep point!

[Buce]

18 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You're not getting that bloody rep point!

 

We'll see.

 

Your dishonour will continue to stain you, your children, and your children's children until I do.

Edited 19 July 2018 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

17 hours ago, Webbo said:

At the minute there's no proof we would be worse off long term. If we left with no deal there would probably be 6 months of disruption/recession , which would affect the EU too, but we'd soon recover.

 

There's no proof that the LCFC youth team couldn't outperform the 1st team in the PL. There's no proof that I'd risk my life if I ran out into the fast lane of the M1. Sometimes rational judgment is enough without proof.

 

I honestly think you're being recklessly optimistic if you think the problems would be limited to 6 months of disruption/recession. Even if you dismiss the views of all the experts who expect it to cause damage for years, if not decades, think about the logic.

If major firms, be that Airbus, car makers, City financiers or whoever pull out or even significantly reduce their UK presence, why would that only have an impact for 6 months? Not only would hundreds of thousands of livelihoods be directly at risk, there is then the whole supply chain plus the businesses that depend on the spending from wages paid by those firms - plus the impact on the public finances from lower tax take and higher spending on benefits/health etc.

 

The impact could only be short-term if firms didn't disinvest in that way - or if other firms were lined up to immediately increase investment and create new jobs and wealth in 2019. There's no reason to think that Airbus or The City are bluffing when the disruption of EU supply chains and just-in-time production will obviously happen if we leave the CU and SM, and obstacles, delays and extra expense are added to trading goods/services with the EU. They're businesses, not charities. If other businesses are going to greatly increase investment and employment after March, perhaps you could name a few? 

 

Might not happen, but I honestly believe that No Deal causes a short-term risk of massive economic/social meltdown - everything from logjams at ports, factory closures/layoffs, food shortages, even violence in the streets. It then causes a risk of economic and social damage that could last for decades, unless we achieve unprecedented success in rebuilding this new "Global UK". At a time when we already face so many problems, ranging from an aging population via public debt to an angry, alienated subsection of society open to extremism like the Tommy Robinson crew, that is seriously scary. Maybe I'm wrong and, after 6 months, it'll all go as swimmingly as you suggest. If so, I'll be here to admit it. If No Deal happens and causes untold long-term damage to this country, I presume you'll also be here to explain why it was worthwhile? If hundreds of thousands of people lose their livelihoods, can't pay the mortgage or end up going to food banks to feed their kids, maybe you'd also pop along to explain to them why the economic impact doesn't matter as it's all about "taking back control"?

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

the alternative DexEU plan has been leaked online, it's all there. The brexiteers are told they don't have a plan, if they put a plan out they're accused of undermining the govt.

 

Could you provide a link to this detailed plan? If it's so important, you'd think the media might have mentioned it, but I've heard nothing and I'm a politics obsessive.

 

All I've heard is vague rhetoric about global trade deals etc. Fox announced such a "plan" the other day. Turned out he was just hopeful that we could get a trade deal with the US (good luck with "America First" Trump), Australia and NZ. We currently send 43% of our exports to the EU and 1.2% to Australia (the amount exported to NZ doesn't even register on lists). So any such trade deals would need to come into effect within months and be more massively successful than any trade deal ever to offset even a smallish decline in our EU exports.

 

I saw an interview with a manager from Immingham Docks, who said that even a couple of minutes extra delay with each lorry would bring the port to a standstill within hours - leaving trucks full of industrial components and perishable food unable to move. This could lead to factory shutdowns and food shortages. He wasn't aware of any solution to this. Don't they reckon that leaving the Customs Union will require about a fourfold increase in computer processing of customs documents, requiring a new system that will take about 2 years to develop? There's been talk of building extra lorry parking/queuing areas at ports, clearly a construction project that couldn't be completed overnight - or possibly within the 8 months available. None of these projects have been started, to my knowledge - or does the Brexiteer Plan address these issues?

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

The technology is a!ready out there. We have different currency and vat rates with Ireland. The paperwork is filled in before the lorry leaves the warehouse, there's just the occasional random check.

 

Most experts believe that suitable technology is NOT already out there - but what do experts know? If a lorry drives across the Irish border, how do you know that the produce in the back is from the UK and not imports from outside EU/UK? It could be produce that doesn't meet EU standards or that has been imported (e.g. from the US or Africa) at tariffs much lower than the external tariffs applied by the EU, thereby undermining the Irish economy. Honest UK traders might comply with an agreed system that didn't require border checks - but what is the technology that would weed out those prepared to make a bigger profit by exporting low-tariff or sub-standard goods? The system works fine now as there's no divergence in external standards/tariffs. Currency fluctuations and different VAT rates are transparent elements in a fair market. Boosting smuggling and market unfairness wouldn't be - and the EU is pretty much obliged to protect its member states against that.

 

If anyone was downplaying the potential for peace to break down in N. Ireland, I hope they noted Loyalists in Belfast and Republican dissidents in Derry recently engaged in riots, explosives thrown at Adams' house etc.

We seriously need to avoid giving extremists on either side the chance to ratchet up hostility that could easily get out of control again. Avoiding a hard border is essential - and that requires both sides to ensure that a solution is found that doesn't cause problems for the other. My impression is that Brexiteers view it as a trivial irritation and would be quite happy to have a hard border if necessary, just seeking to blame the EU when it is the UK that is seeking to change the system. Frankly, although most are too polite to say it, I have a sense that they couldn't really give a shit if the Irish started killing one another again (overlooking the fact that a fair few English got killed last time, too).

 

52 minutes ago, Webbo said:

we've said we're willing to trust them, they've managed to trust us for all these years, it's up to them if anything changes.

 

as for illegal immigrants crossing the border in Ireland, why can't they just fly into Heathrow like they do now?

 

Trust is easy when everyone's operating under the same system and rules - including for external imports, as well as UK/Irish output and trade.

But under No Deal, we'd be leaving the SM and CU and setting up our own system and rules. We would be the ones changing everything - they would be responding to protect their interests from perceived risks caused by us ripping up the rule book.

Of course, they might act unfairly in protecting their interests - I'm not naive. But it is us who are choosing to change everything, so EU self-protection in response is inevitable. If the EU chose to tear up the terms of trade with the UK and told us to trust them as before, would the UK be to blame if it responded by changing its procedures to protect British interests?

 

Regarding immigrants, we need to distinguish between different groups. Those from other EU nations would have freedom of movement to Ireland. So Poles and Romanians would be free to enter Ireland - and free to cross into the UK if there was no border. Whereas, if we'd ended freedom of movement, they'd presumably face passport checks at Heathrow. Of course, even at Heathrow some would be able to pretend they were tourists or students, then work or overstay, but many would be prevented from entering (I do have some personal knowledge of this as it was my Dad's job) - whereas no such controls would exist at the Irish border or presumably between NI and GB. This could provide a route in for illegal employment. There are other ways of tackling that, of course: e.g. tighter controls on employment, more labour inspections etc. But the Govt has actually slashed spending on such policies - and increasing it significantly would cost the public finances.

 

The Irish Republic isn't in Schengen, so non-EU immigrants arriving from other EU nations wouldn't have free access to Ireland. Any accepted in Ireland would be able to travel to the UK, but that is true now - and not a major problem, I presume.

[Webbo]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

 

Could you provide a link to this detailed plan? If it's so important, you'd think the media might have mentioned it, but I've heard nothing and I'm a politics obsessive.

 

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2018/07/exclusive-the-alternative-brexit-white-paper-a-draft-from-dexeu-1-mutual-recognition-not-ongoing-harmonisation.html

[Kopfkino]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2018/07/exclusive-the-alternative-brexit-white-paper-a-draft-from-dexeu-1-mutual-recognition-not-ongoing-harmonisation.html

 

No wonder DExEU was sidelined. The EU doesn't do mutual recognition deals (rightly or wrongly). The mutual recognition deals is on conformity, whereby inspectors in those countries can certify goods as EU compliant which is hugely different from recognition of standards, something the EU doesn't do. So completely irrelevant case studies and a proposal that is even less likely than Chequers.  

Edited 19 July 2018 by Kopfkino

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No wonder DExEU was sidelined. The EU doesn't do mutual recognition deals (rightly or wrongly). The mutual recognition deals is on conformity, whereby inspectors in those countries can certify goods as EU compliant which is hugely different from recognition of standards, something the EU doesn't do. 

So have Canada and Japan joined the single market?

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So have Canada and Japan joined the single market?

 

No they have not and as such don't get the same levels of enhanced trading with the EU. Nor are the deals based on mutual recognition of standards. As a free-trade proponent, I would not expect you to want to limit trade with the EU.

[Jon the Hat]

Isn't it interesting how nobody mentioned the Irish border "problem" before the Referendum, yet now it is the handy whataboutery stick Remainders use to wave at everyone.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Isn't it interesting how nobody mentioned the Irish border "problem" before the Referendum, yet now it is the handy whataboutery stick Remainders use to wave at everyone.

Two former Prime Ministers, from opposing parties, joining together to talk specifically about it, doesn't count? I seem to recall it was mentioned fairly frequently during the campaign too.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-border

[bovril]

41 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Isn't it interesting how nobody mentioned the Irish border "problem" before the Referendum, yet now it is the handy whataboutery stick Remainders use to wave at everyone.

That would be like someone in February 2017 saying "well it's strange that nobody talked about sacking Ranieri last season". 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2018/07/exclusive-the-alternative-brexit-white-paper-a-draft-from-dexeu-1-mutual-recognition-not-ongoing-harmonisation.html

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I was hoping to see some sign of plans for No Deal from the Hard Brexit crew.

This "mutual recognition" concept seems to be an alternative to May's Common Rule Book - i.e. a proposed alternative to SM freedom of movement for goods, which would only apply under a negotiated Hard Brexit deal.

I lack expertise in this, but note that some of those commenting below the article make the same point as @Kopfkino about EU recognition of standards, so it sounds unlikely that the EU would agree to this proposal.

It all sounds a bit half-baked, anyway. It makes no provision for an arbitration body equivalent to the ECJ. So what would happen if the EU or the UK refused mutual recognition of an item? Would trade in such items just stop?

 

A lot of Hard Brexiteers are now keen for No Deal, so  can anyone tell me what plans exist for these issues under No Deal:

- No transition period, so we'd be completely out in March 2019, with no trade agreement with the EU, no known new trade deals and competing with the EU on worse terms for trade with S. Korea, Canada, Japan & dozens of other countries with which they have FTAs 

- No agreement on the status of EU citizens living or working in UK or UK citizens living or working in the EU

- UK being excluded from the Open Skies facility, possibly causing planes to be grounded

- No UK membership of schemes such as EU Arrest Warrants, intelligence sharing over terrorism/security, ERASMUS educational exchanges, reciprocal health cover, joint science/space institutions etc.

- Strong suggestions that we won't have a computer system capable of handling the vast increase in Customs red tape by March

- Fears of those in relevant sectors that gridlock will rapidly ensue at ports due to customs delays and the lack of parking/queuing areas for lorries

- Associated fears that this will disrupt just-in-time manufacturing, causing factory closures/layoffs, and chaos in food supplies due to perishable imported food stranded at ports

- The Irish border, as the EU seems to be relying on the UK's commitment to the "backstop" (UK staying in a customs union if no other solution agreed)....though I reckon the Hard Brexit crew shamefully want to renege on this commitment

 

Personally, No Deal seems the very worst outcome, much worse than a negotiated Hard Brexit, never mind Soft Brexit or Remain.

But there are a lot of enthusiasts for No Deal. So presumably you'll know of plans to address or avoid the problems listed, under No Deal?

[Webbo]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

Personally, No Deal seems the very worst outcome, much worse than a negotiated Hard Brexit, never mind Soft Brexit or Remain.

But there are a lot of enthusiasts for No Deal. So presumably you'll know of plans to address or avoid the problems listed, under No Deal?

It takes 2 to make a deal. If they're not interested what can we do?

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Isn't it interesting how nobody mentioned the Irish border "problem" before the Referendum, yet now it is the handy whataboutery stick Remainders use to wave at everyone.

 

Wrong!

 

It wasn't discussed enough before the Referendum, but it was discussed - and it was discussed on this forum as I raised it several times and wasn't the only one.....and that wasn't because I was smart enough to think it up for myself. It WAS discussed during the campaign - you just weren't listening hard enough, Jon! Sad case that I am, I even remember @Strokes accepting that I had a point on the importance of the issue, despite disagreeing me on most other issues.

 

The pre-23rd June topic seems to have been removed, but here's my post on referendum day itself - note bold/underlined section:

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted 23 June 2016 (edited)

  On 23/06/2016 at 15:51, Grewks said:

Can anyone provide with with a single reason to remain in the EU?

 

 

- Business & finance are global, as are trade, security & environment, so part of democracy needs to be more international (yes, EU democracy needs to improve, but isolating ourselves from those decisions isn't the solution)

- The EU achieved a lot before the financial crash/Euro crisis (massive trade growth, higher living standards in UK, rapid improvement of former fascist/communist states)

- In the EU, we are 1 of the 3 most influential powers in the world's most powerful, most highly developed trading/political bloc, operating as equals with the US, China etc, instead of as an isolated, much weaker power

- Whether we leave or stay, we can legislate to counteract low pay encouraged by immigration (labour inspections, prosecutions of illegal pay, job advertising laws, social funds to help public services in high-immigration areas)

- After Brexit, we'd have to choose between the single market & control of our borders, BOTH would simply NOT be an option

.....If we chose the single market, we'd still be subject to EU regulations & contributions, but would have no say

.....If we chose control of our borders, we'd have to renegotiate trade deals with the EU; this would take about 10 years & we'd end up with a worse deal & probably less trade, undermining growth

..... We'd have to renegotiate almost all our non-EU trade deals, which would take years to negotiate and we don't have the resources to negotiate 2 deals simultaneously, never mind 60-70; the idea we just "start trading elsewhere" is rubbish

.....We'd need to re-establish border posts with Republic of Ireland, risking a resumption of IRA/Loyalist terrorism

.... We'd have to rewrite nearly all UK law within 2-3 years, devolving the power to Govt, as parliament couldn't handle the volume 

.....Scotland would probably leave the UK

- Holding a referendum & voting to stay in the EU will give us a stronger mandate to propose/demand EU reform

- We'll be economically better off (Remain exaggerated via "Project Fear", but a downturn affecting incomes, jobs, prices & public services IS almost certain post-Brexit, due to uncertainty, which discourages business/investment)

- If we stay, there's less likelihood of the EU collapsing economically or falling prey to dangerous Far Right extremists & we'll avoid the hostility/tension inevitable after Brexit

 

More than enough reasons...though the EU certainly needs reform.

 

Edited 23 June 2016 by Alf Bentley

•  

Edited 19 July 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest]

At no stage in the referendum campaign was no deal discussed as a possible outcome by vote leave. It's absolute madness. So of course webbo supports it without having a clue what the ramifications are.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

At no stage in the referendum campaign was no deal discussed as a possible outcome by vote leave. It's absolute madness. So of course webbo supports it without having a clue what the ramifications are.

No deal is better than a bad deal Toddy, do keep up.

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Wrong!

 

It wasn't discussed enough before the Referendum, but it was discussed - and it was discussed on this forum as I raised it several times and wasn't the only one.....and that wasn't because I was smart enough to think it up for myself. It WAS discussed during the campaign - you just weren't listening hard enough, Jon! Sad case that I am, I even remember @Strokes accepting that I had a point on the importance of the issue, despite disagreeing me on most other issues.

 

The pre-23rd June topic seems to have been removed, but here's my post on referendum day itself - note bold/underlined section:

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted 23 June 2016 (edited)

  On 23/06/2016 at 15:51, Grewks said:

Can anyone provide with with a single reason to remain in the EU?

 

 

- Business & finance are global, as are trade, security & environment, so part of democracy needs to be more international (yes, EU democracy needs to improve, but isolating ourselves from those decisions isn't the solution)

- The EU achieved a lot before the financial crash/Euro crisis (massive trade growth, higher living standards in UK, rapid improvement of former fascist/communist states)

- In the EU, we are 1 of the 3 most influential powers in the world's most powerful, most highly developed trading/political bloc, operating as equals with the US, China etc, instead of as an isolated, much weaker power

- Whether we leave or stay, we can legislate to counteract low pay encouraged by immigration (labour inspections, prosecutions of illegal pay, job advertising laws, social funds to help public services in high-immigration areas)

- After Brexit, we'd have to choose between the single market & control of our borders, BOTH would simply NOT be an option

.....If we chose the single market, we'd still be subject to EU regulations & contributions, but would have no say

.....If we chose control of our borders, we'd have to renegotiate trade deals with the EU; this would take about 10 years & we'd end up with a worse deal & probably less trade, undermining growth

..... We'd have to renegotiate almost all our non-EU trade deals, which would take years to negotiate and we don't have the resources to negotiate 2 deals simultaneously, never mind 60-70; the idea we just "start trading elsewhere" is rubbish

.....We'd need to re-establish border posts with Republic of Ireland, risking a resumption of IRA/Loyalist terrorism

.... We'd have to rewrite nearly all UK law within 2-3 years, devolving the power to Govt, as parliament couldn't handle the volume 

.....Scotland would probably leave the UK

- Holding a referendum & voting to stay in the EU will give us a stronger mandate to propose/demand EU reform

- We'll be economically better off (Remain exaggerated via "Project Fear", but a downturn affecting incomes, jobs, prices & public services IS almost certain post-Brexit, due to uncertainty, which discourages business/investment)

- If we stay, there's less likelihood of the EU collapsing economically or falling prey to dangerous Far Right extremists & we'll avoid the hostility/tension inevitable after Brexit

 

More than enough reasons...though the EU certainly needs reform.

 

Edited 23 June 2016 by Alf Bentley

•  

 

I do remember you raising it, also James O’Brien on LBC was shouting from the rooftops about it (pre referendum).

It was glossed over by both official campaigns during the campaign, which I think Jon is alluding too.

Unfortunely we seemed boxed in because of it and the only option to have our brexit, is to break the Belfast agreement or push for a united ireland. 

[Carl the Llama]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It takes 2 to make a deal. If they're not interested what can we do?

Continue to dig our own grave now so that we have control of the spade?  

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It takes 2 to make a deal. If they're not interested what can we do?

 

 

Well, you used to claim that we were in a strong negotiating position due to our trade deficit with the EU, German car exports and French wine exports, so the EU would have to do a deal on our terms.

 

There were also suggestions that the EU would end up divided among themselves, or that we just had to speak to Merkel. Those arguments don't seem to be made any more....and it's the UK and even the Tory Party that seem bitterly divided.

 

So, I guess that leaves 3 options:

1) Admit to the public, that the Brexit promises were unachievable, seek to revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU.

2) Accept that we're in the weaker negotiating position with the clock ticking on disaster, so compromise and do a Soft Brexit deal that the EU and the UK Parliament can live with.

3) As you have no answers to my previous questions about No Deal, I presume we otherwise have the option of: lost trade, lost jobs, lost businesses, lost living standards, lost tax revenue so higher tax rates or slashed public services, chaos at ports, disrupted food/medicine supplies, pensioners returning from the Costas, skilled EU workers returning home, grounded planes, no shared security, no freedom to live/work on the continent, no reciprocal healthcare, no joint arrest warrants, a higher risk of violence in Ireland, greater poverty, social unrest and violence in GB.

 

It is clear to me that (3) is the best option as "No Deal is better than a bad deal"! Anyway, if the country descends into total anarchy or misery we can always blame the EU or immigrants or Corbyn.... 

[Kopfkino]

38 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I lack expertise in this, but note that some of those commenting below the article make the same point as @Kopfkino about EU recognition of standards, so it sounds unlikely that the EU would agree to this proposal.

It all sounds a bit half-baked, anyway. It makes no provision for an arbitration body equivalent to the ECJ. So what would happen if the EU or the UK refused mutual recognition of an item? Would trade in such items just stop?

 

 

Yeah they just don't do it on standards. The EU is, and wants to be, a supranational regulatory body so they just don't accept other ways as such. This is the US's big complaint at the WTO, even if the US ends up with an outcome that goes further, the EU want it done their way. I think it's all daft because standards are largely internationalised and are internationalising further, just the EU wants to be the one to set those standards. I'd prefer a system of mutual recognition but it isn't happening.

 

And why people are getting hung up on standards wrt goods I'm not sure. We're not all of a sudden going to deregulate our washing machine or fridge markets, and standards are largely international so it really doesn't matter for a large amount of goods. 

 

 

Regarding the question Webbo won't answer, the AUS-NZ agreement is any good sold in one country can be sold in the other, same with occupational licensing. There are temporary halts than can be put in place but there is no refusal. They have a ministerial council that assesses it all and there remit is to where possible adhere to international trade standards. So again, always back to international standards anyway. 

 

59 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Personally, No Deal seems the very worst outcome, much worse than a negotiated Hard Brexit, never mind Soft Brexit or Remain.

But there are a lot of enthusiasts for No Deal. So presumably you'll know of plans to address or avoid the problems listed, under No Deal?

 

No there's zero idea. It should be an option on the table but the sheer lack of planning and preparation is criminal. But yeah of course there's zero idea because anyone actually proposing it must surely contradict their own vote. Thinking it will all be fine if we just wake up one day and a deep 40-year relationship has just ceased to exist makes voting to leave pure daft. If all would be fine then the EU must surely have very little effect, and certainly can't be overbearing, if no deal would be okay.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It takes 2 to make a deal. If they're not interested what can we do?

Look at the reality of what that means instead of simply blaming someone else or trying to deflect the question with other questions, maybe?

 

The moral high ground ain't going to be much use if even some of the things being warned about come to pass.

Edited 19 July 2018 by Voll Blau

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I do remember you raising it, also James O’Brien on LBC was shouting from the rooftops about it (pre referendum).

It was glossed over by both official campaigns during the campaign, which I think Jon is alluding too.

Unfortunely we seemed boxed in because of it and the only option to have our brexit, is to break the Belfast agreement or push for a united ireland. 

 

Thanks. Glad I'm not going senile.

 

Yes, the Irish issue wasn't discussed enough during the campaign, but it certainly was discussed.

I suppose, as N. Ireland is a small, distant, not-much-understood part of the UK to most voters, it's natural that campaigns wouldn't make a big deal of it (except in N. Ireland itself) and that media outlets would do the same.

If Brexit was likely to have a disproportionately large impact on Cornwall or the Orkneys, the same would apply, I suppose.

 

Either breaking the Belfast Agreement or pushing for a united Ireland at the moment seem guaranteed to lead to massive problems and very possibly a return to terrorism.

No excuse for that, but it's not a risk that should be considered. A solution to the border problem must be found.

There's also the little matter that we signed up to the backstop, promising to stay in a customs union if no alternative was found.

Though you may criticise May for agreeing to that, I find it shameful that the Hard Brexiteers clearly now want to renege on that promise.

(I'm not having a go at you there, as I appreciate you're just speaking honestly - but people like Boris and Davis were in a cabinet that went along with May's agreements, even giving them lavish praise).

 

Incidentally, re. that Irish Times article that @Webbo quoted, maybe I'm misinterpreting it but to me, when they refer to the EU "relying on the commitments made by others", I presume they mean the commitments that the UK made to implement the customs union backstop if no alternative solution was agreed for the Irish border.....

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks. Glad I'm not going senile.

 

Yes, the Irish issue wasn't discussed enough during the campaign, but it certainly was discussed.

I suppose, as N. Ireland is a small, distant, not-much-understood part of the UK to most voters, it's natural that campaigns wouldn't make a big deal of it (except in N. Ireland itself) and that media outlets would do the same.

If Brexit was likely to have a disproportionately large impact on Cornwall or the Orkneys, the same would apply, I suppose.

 

Either breaking the Belfast Agreement or pushing for a united Ireland at the moment seem guaranteed to lead to massive problems and very possibly a return to terrorism.

No excuse for that, but it's not a risk that should be considered. A solution to the border problem must be found.

There's also the little matter that we signed up to the backstop, promising to stay in a customs union if no alternative was found.

Though you may criticise May for agreeing to that, I find it shameful that the Hard Brexiteers clearly now want to renege on that promise.

(I'm not having a go at you there, as I appreciate you're just speaking honestly - but people like Boris and Davis were in a cabinet that went along with May's agreements, even giving them lavish praise).

 

Incidentally, re. that Irish Times article that @Webbo quoted, maybe I'm misinterpreting it but to me, when they refer to the EU "relying on the commitments made by others", I presume they mean the commitments that the UK made to implement the customs union backstop if no alternative solution was agreed for the Irish border.....

Yeah it’s the backstop that lead me to the statement of United ireland etc.

We don’t really have any other possible solution, as a WTO member we would be obliged to have a hard border, so the customs union is the only other option. If that’s the case we might as well end A50 for me.

 

edit I did hear something the other day, that the Belfast agreement makes provisions for a united Ireland if there is a change in circumstances. If so, could we not propose a referendum to NI and let the people decide what they would like too happen?

Edited 19 July 2018 by Strokes

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah it’s the backstop that lead me to the statement of United ireland etc.

We don’t really have any other possible solution, as a WTO member we would be obliged to have a hard border, so the customs union is the only other option. If that’s the case we might as well end A50 for me.

 

edit I did hear something the other day, that the Belfast agreement makes provisions for a united Ireland if there is a change in circumstances. If so, could we not propose a referendum to NI and let the people decide what they would like too happen?

 

 

I'm not sure exactly what the Agreement says. There is a provision for a united Ireland, but only with majority support at a referendum in both N. Ireland and Rep. of Ireland, I think.

 

I'm not even sure that the Irish Republic would vote in favour, given the risks and potential burden never mind the North. Demographically the Unionists only have a small majority in the North now. As a few are prepared to contemplate the idea of a united Ireland, I suppose it's conceivable that a referendum could pass - though still unlikely, I suspect. Even then, though, it would surely be a guaranteed recipe for civil war and terrorism, as a substantial proportion of the Unionist/Loyalist community simply wouldn't accept it and many would take up arms. Even calling a referendum would probably cause violence.

 

It could be a repeat of the pre-WW1 period of Irish history. That bit doesn't get discussed much. Westminster was in the process of legislating for Irish Home Rule (Ireland remaining in the UK, but having devolved powers and its own parliament, like Scotland now). But the Unionist/Loyalist minority in Ulster simply wouldn't accept it ("Home Rule is Rome Rule" etc.) and about a million took up arms, ready to fight the Brits and the Irish nationalists if Home Rule was introduced. Then the legislation was postponed when WW1 broke out, the Easter Rising & subsequent executions happened, the mood in the South shifted towards full independence - and partition in 1922 was the outcome.

 

I research family history and recently found one of my sets of great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents among the millions who signed the pre-WW1 "Ulster Covenant", promising to resist Home Rule by every means possible. Most of my family are of Munster Irish, Catholic stock, but my maternal Grandma's lot were Ulster Presbyterians and other Protestants.

[breadandcheese]

26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not sure exactly what the Agreement says. There is a provision for a united Ireland, but only with majority support at a referendum in both N. Ireland and Rep. of Ireland, I think.

 

I'm not even sure that the Irish Republic would vote in favour, given the risks and potential burden never mind the North. Demographically the Unionists only have a small majority in the North now. As a few are prepared to contemplate the idea of a united Ireland, I suppose it's conceivable that a referendum could pass - though still unlikely, I suspect. Even then, though, it would surely be a guaranteed recipe for civil war and terrorism, as a substantial proportion of the Unionist/Loyalist community simply wouldn't accept it and many would take up arms. Even calling a referendum would probably cause violence.

 

It could be a repeat of the pre-WW1 period of Irish history. That bit doesn't get discussed much. Westminster was in the process of legislating for Irish Home Rule (Ireland remaining in the UK, but having devolved powers and its own parliament, like Scotland now). But the Unionist/Loyalist minority in Ulster simply wouldn't accept it ("Home Rule is Rome Rule" etc.) and about a million took up arms, ready to fight the Brits and the Irish nationalists if Home Rule was introduced. Then the legislation was postponed when WW1 broke out, the Easter Rising & subsequent executions happened, the mood in the South shifted towards full independence - and partition in 1922 was the outcome.

 

I research family history and recently found one of my sets of great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents among the millions who signed the pre-WW1 "Ulster Covenant", promising to resist Home Rule by every means possible. Most of my family are of Munster Irish, Catholic stock, but my maternal Grandma's lot were Ulster Presbyterians and other Protestants.

Not to mention that it wouldn't just be a referendum in Ireland.  It would be impossible to argue with a straight face that Northern Ireland should have a referendum and Scotland (which also voted to remain) should not.  So we'd see another movement North of the border and the break-up of the United Kingdom.