Brexit process

[Little John]

What, specifically does the GFA have to say about the internal border in Ireland? I just had a look on Wikipedia and there is no mention of it in the agreement. I'm not denying that there will be if you say there is. Indeed, I would be very surprised if there was not something written about it in the agreement. But, I could do with pointing to a link that spells it out.

[UndercoverElephant]

What, specifically does the GFA have to say about the internal border in Ireland? I just had a look on Wikipedia and there is no mention of it in the agreement. I'm not denying that there will be if you say there is. Indeed, I would be very surprised if there was not something written about it in the agreement. But, I could do with pointing to a link that spells it out.

In fact, it is not just an internal border that breaches the GFA. So does a border in the Irish Sea.

https://bangordub.wordpress.com/2016/06 ... d-ireland/

In Ireland(North and South) we had a referendum on the GFA which confirmed the right of the people of Ireland to self- determination and contains the following clause;

“affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities�

Quite clearly organising a referendum that has the potential to rupture the economic and social integration of Irish people on both sides of the border is completely at odds with the principle outlined above that “just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities� and is, to use an infamous quote from earlier days, ‘bordering on the reckless’.

The GFA compels the UK and the Republic not to do anything that is not "rigorously impartial" on behalf of all of the population of Northern Ireland. Even though the motive for building a border has got absolutely nothing to do with wanting to behave in a "partial" manner in Northern Ireland, it inevitably is. If the border goes in the Irish Sea, it would be exactly what republicans want and the last thing unionists want, because it would be a massive lurch towards re-unification. If the border is internal in Ireland then the impartiality is the way other around - it would suit the unionists while the republicans would view it as a catastrophe. The EU kicking Ireland out of the customs union would not be partial in this way (it is not obvious whether that suits the unionists or republicans in NI more than each other), and also the EU is not a signatory to the GFA anyway.

A no-deal Brexit is legally incompatible with either one or the other of the GFA and existing EU treaties. The only way to make it legal is if the EU offers the UK a deal which will both allow that border to remain as it is and also be acceptable to the British parliament and public. And there's no conceivable deal of that sort which does not involve the UK "cherry-picking" from the single market to an extent that would be the EU's worst nightmare.

[Little John]

So, the Good Friday agreement does not specifically make mention of the internal border then.

Having said the above, I do accept, with qualifications, an argument that any significant firming up of the internal border that exists would not be conducive to keeping the peace.

So, that goes back to the central point made by me earlier. Namely, that there is no technical impediment to implementing some kind of visa arrangement between Northern Irish and Southern Irish citizens such that personal travel and business could continue as before. But, that there would inevitably be a requirement to put in place customs arrangement for goods. Additionally, if the above measures were in place, none of that would change the rights of either side of the border to enact reunification if that's what they wanted. Though it would, of course, represent for the Northern Irish another factor to consider if they were to make a decision to unify with southern Ireland; namely, that they would be joining the EU as well. But, that would be a matter for them to deliberate on.

Yhe extent to which the above is not implemented will be entirely a function of Southern Irish Government and/or EU intransigence.

In other words, nothing inherently to do with the GFA.

[emordnilap]

The chances of Ireland leaving the EU are very slim at the moment.

Yes, it's not going to happen in the current circs. or with any of the front-line parties. It's a nation of farmers - a massive percentage of them would not be in farming, but for the EU. This is why Vradakar will kowtow.

[UndercoverElephant]

So, that goes back to the central point made by me earlier. Namely, that there is no technical impediment to implementing some kind of visa arrangement between Northern Irish and Southern Irish citizens such that personal travel and business could continue as before. But, that there would inevitably be a requirement to put in place customs arrangement for goods.

But even this would require the construction of a 500km border fence, with manned posts.

The problem is that the decision on where to put the border shifts the uneasy balanced of the existing political situation into something unbalanced. An internal Irish border is a clear victory for the unionists and a border in the Irish Sea is a clear victory for republicans. The latter leads to a united Ireland in the forseeable future and the former leads to NI remaining in the UK for the forseeable future. There's no way to sugar-coat this for whichever side loses.

In other words, nothing inherently to do with the GFA.

Just because the border is not specifically mentioned in the GFA, it does not follow that it is not legally relevant. Had the people drafting the GFA had any suspicious that the UK might actually leave the EU, then there is no doubt at all that the problem we are facing now would have been very obvious then, and the GFA would have needed to address it.

[Little John]

That's merely speculation. A legitimate speculation. Or, at least, no more or less legitimate than any other. But, there are equally legitimate counter speculations. It is not a statement of legislative fact. The plain fact is, the firming up the internal border in Northern Ireland does not change the constitutional arrangements vis a vis the GFA except insofar as the Irish Government and/or the EU deliberately set out to use the threat of playing silly buggers with the border as leverage in the Brexit negotiations.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, the idea that the Irish border could be used as leverage entirely by one side and not the other (by the EU dictating the sequence of the talks and the existence of this "backstop") has completely f*cked up any chance there was of a succesful outcome. The intention was to prevent the UK using the threat of a hard border as leverage, and it has failed spectacularly, because that is exactly where we now are.

I think the EU believed its own propaganda about how it holds all the cards. What *should* have happened was that the talks were parallel - we should have been talking about a future trading relationship at the same time as dealing withdrawal, which would have allowed more options for solutions to the Irish border problem. But it also would have been more equal in other respects, instead of the EU striding around in a pair of jackboots calling all the shots.

[Lord Beria3]

https://www.eurointelligence.com/public.html

When people in the UK hyperventilate about the Chequers proposal, they forget the simple reason why it is there and why there are no alternatives: it is the only proposal that at least attempts to solve the Irish problem and to minimise disruption for business. Details matter, and some elements in Chequers are clearly not acceptable to the EU. But the EU will negotiate with Theresa May on the basis of it.

The big news in the UK - or rather for the journalists in the UK - is that the EU wants to cut a deal before the end of this year. Michel Barnier is quoted in the UK media as saying that a withdrawal deal is possible within six to eight weeks. We agree it is possible, though we think it might take a tad longer. The EU is currently planning to hold a special Brexit summit in November.

The probability of a deal - loosely based on Chequers with a fudged political declaration - is high. The question is, of course, will the Commons accept it?

One Tory MP made headlines yesterday with a claim that 80 Tory MPs would reject it. We think this is nonsense. It is one thing to rage against a specific proposal, but quite another to vote against the withdrawal agreement and confront the extreme two-tail risks that could emanate from such a decision. The most probable, but not certain, outcome of a No vote would be a hard Brexit. Another possibility would be another election or even a second referendum. We don’t think it will happen, but we cannot, of course, completely rule out the possibility of a Brexit reversal if only because of the tendency of events to intrude.

There were a couple of interesting points in this morning’s column by William Hague in the Daily Telegraph - and a sin of omission we find highly revealing. Hague draws up the scenario of a constitutional crisis in the UK that could occur if parliament supported an amendment to extend the Brexit deadline, and the government failed to implement it.

It is interesting that UK commentators always fail to the see the EU’s own position into account. Under Article 50, only the European Council - not the UK parliament - can extend the Brexit date. Would they agree, by the required unanimity, to a six-month extension of the Brexit process which would place the UK referendum campaign bang in the middle of the EU’s own elections in May? This is the reason why we are a tad more optimistic. It won’t come to a constitutional crisis because the scenario is unrealistic. It is always possible for the UK parliament to pass an amendment to postpone Brexit. It would have the same legal and political significance as an amendment to abolish the tooth fairy.

A far more likely no-deal scenario is for the government and the EU to make it very clear that a rejection of the withdrawal treaty would not lead to a postponement of Brexit, but to a hard Brexit. By far the most likely outcome of a No vote would be an UK election, maybe early in 2019. It should not be too difficult for May to cast the vote as a proxy referendum between her deal and a no-deal Brexit. If she won a majority, the newly elected House of Commons would approve the deal.

An interesting post by Euro-intelligence today.

I agree with them that the EU will negotiate with May on the Chequers proposal rather then reject it out right. Of course, the final outcome will be a mutilated version as I wrote about in my FI blog yesterday.

I'm not so convinced by their analysis towards the end.

- will Labour really vote for a deal even though Corbyn will be whipping his MP's to reject it (in the hope of triggering an early ge).

- A shitty Chequers Minus deal with no guarantees in the political declaration on core issues like regaining control of our borders, economy etc is unlikely to be acceptable to many Tory MP's. And it will be widely loathed in the country.

- Eurointelligence take it for granted that the prospect of a no-deal/Hard Brexit outcome is terrifying to most people but I'm not so sure. I personally would prefer a WTO Brexit over a deeply flawed deal which appears likely to be negotiated over the coming months.

- would May really win a ge on deal or no deal? Voters have a tendency to make their own decisions on what the ge is about. Corbyn would campaign on issues like public services, ending austerity rather then the Brexit deal or not. As we saw in May 2017, May decision to call a Brexit election imploded in her face.

- Would the Tory party allow May to call an election?! Surely, after 2017, they would rather trigger an election contest and remove her rather then go through that ordeal again.

Conclusion - I think Eurointelligence underestimate the anger and rage that a Chequers Minus deal will face in the UK. The possibility of a no-deal outcome is higher then they think.

[UndercoverElephant]

If TM seriously starts negotiating "Chequers minus" then all hell will break loose long before the negotiations can conclude. I cannot believe she can make it fly. A vague "political statement" - a "blind brexit" where we get the shitty end of a deal with other end left open is a truly horrendous outcome, and do not believe the tory party will let her do it. They'll get rid of her if they think this is where things are heading, and replace her with bojo.

[Little John]

From the very beginning, the position should have been:

1) Offer a sensible trade deal such as is in operation all around the world. Canada/EU being an obvious example that could have been pulled off the shelf with little modification.

2) With regards to the internal Irish border; offer an Irish citizen visa arrangement with SI whereby Irish citizens, either side of the border, could continue to travel more or less unimpeded between the two territories. Simultaneously, offer to set up a customs border for goods, in good faith, with the EU such that they may be assured that non-EU-regulation-conforming products are not making their way into the EU territory by a back door.

3) In the absence of good faith from the EU vis a vis a trade deal or in connection with the Irish border, walk away and trade on WTO rules.

This is what is now likely anyway. The reason being, anything other than a deal of good faith, outlined above, or walking away if one cannot be reached, will be explosively unacceptable to the British people. But, the UK has wasted 2 years getting here.

But, we all know why those 2 years have been wasted don't we. It is because our political class thought they could wear us down to the point of reversing Brexit.

Well, they were wrong and that is not going to happen. Or, at least, if our political class attempt to push through a betrayal of the referendum vote, then there will be a major realignment of British politics that will make the likes of Farage's UKIP look tame by comparison.

[UndercoverElephant]

Posted 30 mins ago on Twitter/Facebook by Robert Peston:

Robert Peston: Tory Brexiters of the European Research Group have tonight been openly plotting a coup against @theresa_may

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1039614138878709760

https://www.facebook.com/14982767671637 ... 530283547/

I am just going to let this speak for itself. It’s a slightly edited but verbatim account of tonight’s weekly meeting of the Brexiter European Research Group faction of the Conservative Party.

It requires no additional comment from me - other than that I have multiple sources vouching for its veracity.

“We've just had an ERG mass meeting, 50 odd MPs present, where virtually the only topic of conversation for 40/50 mins was: how best do we get rid of her? What's the best way to use our letters?

Comments included: ‘Everyone I know says she has to go’, ‘she's a disaster’, ‘this can't go on’.

You might think that this is usual far for us, but it's not! Not in the mass weekly meeting, never in what's basically a public forum.

The truly amazing thing was they spoke about it so openly, in such an unabashed way, even though they could see the Whips' sneak sitting there.

Really, really detailed discussion of the mechanics of how best you game the leadership election rules. And zero dissent.

No one, in a room of fifty Tory MPs even raised a squeak of objection. Not even a murmured pretence as good form. Nor did anyone preface their remarks with any 'sadly I've concluded formulae'.

We were in the Thatcher Room to add piquancy�.

And here’s more:

“It was truly mind blowing. You felt the ground opening up under your feet. The most amazing thing was that no one even bothered to mime a pretence of regret�.

[Little John]

The hard line Tory Brexiteers have always wanted it. But, now, they are being joined by the career politicians in the Tory party who are beginning to finally acknowledge, in electoral terms, their comfortable careers as MPs are over, for all of the reasons I have mentioned, come the next election if they continue to back Theresa May's Remain agenda.

So, it is the beginning of the end game for Brexit and the Tories. Speaking personally, I hope it tears the Tory party apart, just so long as we get Brexit in the process.

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not sure yet, but judging from what I can see buzzing around twitter and reddit, this is it. If the ERG don't move against TM now, they can't and won't. Yes, we are entering the endgame.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status ... 1057188866

[Lord Beria3]

I now back a challenge to May and I am a Tory member.

We need a Canada style hard Brexit or if not a wto no deal brexit.

Like Greer i think a hard Brexit will lead to an economic boom so UE your hope that the Tories will implode might be proven wrong.

[Little John]

Brexit Morons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9T4dGA ... ture=share