Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Northern Ireland border has been such a difficult issu

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Northern Ireland border has been such a difficult issue

I’ve just come across an article by John McTernan, Tony Blair’s former director of political operations, which explains very clearly why the Northern Ireland border is such an issue in the Brexit negotiations.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    First.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,100
    Hey!!!! I thought I was the only one allowed to write articles about NI!

    :)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    Again, I ask which of the Europhobic luminaries we have on here predicted, pre-Brexit, this slight, irreleavnt issue with the Irish border ?

    I can recall lots of talk about Gibraltar, but none about NI. I think one poster claims to have brought it up. Any other takers?
  • TOPPING said:

    Hey!!!! I thought I was the only one allowed to write articles about NI!

    :)

    Dance off between you and Alanbrooke.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    Fifth!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    FPT:
    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.

    The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
    I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.

    Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.

    I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
    I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.

    If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    Be honest TSE, you're just trying to avoid responding to my AV comment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,100

    TOPPING said:

    Hey!!!! I thought I was the only one allowed to write articles about NI!

    :)

    Dance off between you and Alanbrooke.
    You should see my fleckle...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    But no country is fully sovereign, with the possible exception of North Korea. Even the USA, China and Russia have constraints on their power, as otherwise they cannot trade freely and if they cannot trade, their economies implode. Russia would come closest to a fully sovereign major state, but that's not an example we'd wish to emulate.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.

    The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?

    I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.

    Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.

    I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
    I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.

    If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
  • ydoethur said:

    Be honest TSE, you're just trying to avoid responding to my AV comment.

    I'm focussing on Sunday's thread.

    It is my best one ever.

    I'll also be disappointed if it doesn't make John Rentoul's QTWTAIN list.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,047
    edited December 2018
    If the GFA is the only reason preventing the resumption of the troubles, then we are kowtowing to terrorists whom we are scared of in a way we never would to radical Islam for example. Frankly I find that mind set worrying and without foundation.

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
  • That's why Ireland is insisting on a watertight legal "backstop". They feel the UK would otherwise be reneging on the GFA.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:

    Be honest TSE, you're just trying to avoid responding to my AV comment.

    I'm focussing on Sunday's thread.

    It is my best one ever.

    I'll also be disappointed if it doesn't make John Rentoul's QTWTAIN list.
    Best one ever? You're not going to make some silly remark about The Last Jedi are you?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    But no country is fully sovereign, with the possible exception of North Korea. Even the USA, China and Russia have constraints on their power, as otherwise they cannot trade freely and if they cannot trade, their economies implode. Russia would come closest to a fully sovereign major state, but that's not an example we'd wish to emulate.
    I fully accept that we are very limited in our ability to make other countries do things - but we are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This whole issue questions the very integrity of our country.

    Personally I would not be upset to see the unification of Ireland (quite why this attitude upsets remainers, I don't know), but we voted as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the EU. And there are some people who think we ought not to be able to do that without conditions imposed by an external body.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,843
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Be honest TSE, you're just trying to avoid responding to my AV comment.

    I'm focussing on Sunday's thread.

    It is my best one ever.

    I'll also be disappointed if it doesn't make John Rentoul's QTWTAIN list.
    Best one ever? You're not going to make some silly remark about The Last Jedi are you?
    Wow, if he did then that alone would make it his best ever!

    (Sorry TSE, couldn't resist)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,749
    edited December 2018
    What amendments to Mrs May's deal will be allowed and in what order?

    I suspect the Speaker will call them in ascending order of probability of passing, having consulted Party Leaders or whips. Otherwise it could get messy.

    Could be:

    1. Substitute Canada+ Ayes 100 Noes 540 [NI problem]
    2. Substitute Norway+ Ayes 200 Noes 440 [Not Brexit]
    3. Substitute Labour plan Ayes 220 Noes 420 [Labour support only]
    4. Support bill subject to referendum no Deal versus Deal Ayes 250 Noes 390 [risks no deal]
    5. Support bill subject to 3 way referendum Ayes 300 Noes 340 [too complex and risky]
    6. Support bill subject to referendum Deal versus Remain Ayes 321 Noes 319 [or Ayes 319 Noes 321 and her deal is passed without amendment]

    4-6 would also include request to EU to extend A50 to allow referendum.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,459
    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    That's not entirely unfair. As an intellectual exercise, if we assume both that the UK and Ireland regard themselves as bound by all the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that this agreement is permanent and unalterable, then neither the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland are completely sovereign. Rather, they operate as a co-dependent pair, with power of veto over some of each others' actions.

    One wonders whether or not either John Major or Tony Blair fully appreciated what it was they were signing up to?
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,047
    edited December 2018

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:



    Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.

    I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
    I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.

    If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    Oh yes, well spotted! You and your eagle eyes eh?

    Plus, of course, the revocation has to be in writing... and who decides whether it's properly in writing? The evil ECJ again - of course! And what if we don't address it to the European Council correctly?... Rejected again!

    That ECJ ruling that we could unilaterally revoke A50 was just a tease to build our hopes up wasn't it?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839

    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    That's not entirely unfair. As an intellectual exercise, if we assume both that the UK and Ireland regard themselves as bound by all the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that this agreement is permanent and unalterable, then neither the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland are completely sovereign. Rather, they operate as a co-dependent pair, with power of veto over some of each others' actions.

    One wonders whether or not either John Major or Tony Blair fully appreciated what it was they were signing up to?
    It has been suggested that a British Isles referendum would have been a better idea (though Ireland has the Euro, so maybe not!). The result would have been very close. I guess Ireland would have been oppose in case leave won and UK leavers would have objected as they'd have seen it as a way of increasing the remain vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    edited December 2018

    Oh yes, well spotted! You and your eagle eyes eh?

    Plus, of course, the revocation has to be in writing... and who decides whether it's properly in writing? The evil ECJ again - of course! And what if we don't address it to the European Council properly?

    The ECJ ruling that we could unilaterally revoke A50 was just a tease to build our hope up wasn't it?

    I have to say, the idea that the ECJ could judge whether a written revocation was in order struck as bizarre at the time.

    It does rather presuppose the judges can read, and the evidence for this is, hum, shall we say, limited?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    That's not entirely unfair. As an intellectual exercise, if we assume both that the UK and Ireland regard themselves as bound by all the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that this agreement is permanent and unalterable, then neither the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland are completely sovereign. Rather, they operate as a co-dependent pair, with power of veto over some of each others' actions.

    One wonders whether or not either John Major or Tony Blair fully appreciated what it was they were signing up to?
    It has been suggested that a British Isles referendum would have been a better idea (though Ireland has the Euro, so maybe not!). The result would have been very close. I guess Ireland would have been oppose in case leave won and UK leavers would have objected as they'd have seen it as a way of increasing the remain vote.
    Because Ireland would have been so keen to have a referendum where they would have formed about 8% of the electorate to sort out a dispute in the governing party of a foreign power?
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:



    I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.

    If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);

    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    Oh yes, well spotted! You and your eagle eyes eh?

    Plus, of course, the revocation has to be in writing... and who decides whether it's properly in writing? The evil ECJ again - of course! And what if we don't address it to the European Council correctly?... Rejected again!

    That ECJ ruling that we could unilaterally revoke A50 was just a tease to build our hopes up wasn't it?
    The point is that it's clearly not a ruling that we can revoke unilaterally and people who are claiming it is haven't understood it.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,749
    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.

    The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?

    I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.

    Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.

    I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
    I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
    ;
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    The two parties (UK government and EU Council) would judge and accept. There may be appeals from spoilers but they would get nowhere. The caravan will have moved on.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    Barnesian said:

    What amendments to Mrs May's deal will be allowed and in what order?

    I suspect the Speaker will call them in ascending order of probability of passing, having consulted Party Leaders or whips. Otherwise it could get messy.

    Could be:

    1. Substitute Canada+ Ayes 100 Noes 540 [NI problem]
    2. Substitute Norway+ Ayes 200 Noes 440 [Not Brexit]
    3. Substitute Labour plan Ayes 220 Noes 420 [Labour support only]
    4. Support bill subject to referendum no Deal versus Deal Ayes 250 Noes 390 [risks no deal]
    5. Support bill subject to 3 way referendum Ayes 300 Noes 340 [too complex and risky]
    6. Support bill subject to referendum Deal versus Remain Ayes 321 Noes 319 [or Ayes 319 Noes 321 and her deal is passed without amendment]

    4-6 would also include request to EU to extend A50 to allow referendum.

    A thoughtful analysis Barnesian. It'll be interesting to keep this and see how close it matches reality. Might not be too far off, though I expect the Brextreemists will be on i a minute to tell you how wrong you are. ("No Deal - No Surrender"!)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Be honest TSE, you're just trying to avoid responding to my AV comment.

    I'm focussing on Sunday's thread.

    It is my best one ever.

    I'll also be disappointed if it doesn't make John Rentoul's QTWTAIN list.
    Best one ever? You're not going to make some silly remark about The Last Jedi are you?

    The bar is quite low tbf. :wink:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    Barnesian said:

    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.

    The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?

    I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.

    Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.

    I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
    I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
    ;
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    The two parties (UK government and EU Council) would judge and accept. There may be appeals from spoilers but they would get nowhere. The caravan will have moved on.
    But what if the UK thinks it is unequivocal but the council does not? Then the ECJ decides.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    That's not entirely unfair. As an intellectual exercise, if we assume both that the UK and Ireland regard themselves as bound by all the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that this agreement is permanent and unalterable, then neither the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland are completely sovereign. Rather, they operate as a co-dependent pair, with power of veto over some of each others' actions.

    One wonders whether or not either John Major or Tony Blair fully appreciated what it was they were signing up to?
    It has been suggested that a British Isles referendum would have been a better idea (though Ireland has the Euro, so maybe not!). The result would have been very close. I guess Ireland would have been oppose in case leave won and UK leavers would have objected as they'd have seen it as a way of increasing the remain vote.
    Because Ireland would have been so keen to have a referendum where they would have formed about 8% of the electorate to sort out a dispute in the governing party of a foreign power?
    Well quite, but I was just replying to the suggestion that the GFA creates shared sovereignty. In reality I get the sense that some think the GFA bounds the UK to not doing anything that inconveniences the RoI.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,959
    Ydoethur said
    '
    'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'

    With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,749
    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:



    The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?

    I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.

    Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.

    I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
    I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
    ;
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    The two parties (UK government and EU Council) would judge and accept. There may be appeals from spoilers but they would get nowhere. The caravan will have moved on.
    But what if the UK thinks it is unequivocal but the council does not? Then the ECJ decides.
    Unlikely isn't it? The Council would grab it with both hands and great relief.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    Barnesian said:



    Unlikely isn't it? The Council would grab it with both hands and great relief.

    Not really commenting on how likely it is, just that the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter, and so it's not a unilateral decision.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:



    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    Oh yes, well spotted! You and your eagle eyes eh?

    Plus, of course, the revocation has to be in writing... and who decides whether it's properly in writing? The evil ECJ again - of course! And what if we don't address it to the European Council correctly?... Rejected again!

    That ECJ ruling that we could unilaterally revoke A50 was just a tease to build our hopes up wasn't it?
    The point is that it's clearly not a ruling that we can revoke unilaterally and people who are claiming it is haven't understood it.
    Yeah, I see your point. Although the bit that says "allows that Member State... to revoke that notification unilaterally" confuses the issue slightly.

    I'll file your explanation under "Black is White" next to "2 + 2 = 5".

    Why bother with facts when you can fantasise eh?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    justin124 said:

    Ydoethur said
    '
    'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'

    With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.

    You are denying you wished to see Theresa May go blind? You admitted the other one (or some form of bodily harm) yesterday!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    I do wonder if the EU is being recklessly complacent in forgetting the Loyalist paramilitary groups and their potential reaction. It wasn't just the IRA that went around killing people.
  • ydoethur said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    I do wonder if the EU is being recklessly complacent in forgetting the Loyalist paramilitary groups and their potential reaction. It wasn't just the IRA that went around killing people.
    Indeed. They seem to have decided Ireland is their side so they will 100% back Ireland and screw the Brits.

    And they wonder why Unionists object?
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    ydoethur said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    I do wonder if the EU is being recklessly complacent in forgetting the Loyalist paramilitary groups and their potential reaction. It wasn't just the IRA that went around killing people.
    Be careful or you'll have ultra Remainers accusing you of threatening violence.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,959
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Ydoethur said
    '
    'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'

    With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.

    You are denying you wished to see Theresa May go blind? You admitted the other one (or some form of bodily harm) yesterday!
    I said no such thing about Jeremy Corbyn being blown up. In my anger at his failure to stop the 2017 election I did say that Labour's best interests at that point would be well served by his becoming incapacitated through serious illness.I lost my rag and fully accept that I was wrong to comment like that.
    Nevertheless this is the second time within 24 hours that you have played 'fast and loose' with facts. Yesreday you were spouting gibberish re-A level grades prior to 1990.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    ;
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    The two parties (UK government and EU Council) would judge and accept. There may be appeals from spoilers but they would get nowhere. The caravan will have moved on.
    But what if the UK thinks it is unequivocal but the council does not? Then the ECJ decides.
    How would you word a revocation to make it in any way equivocal or conditional and that equivocation or condition be in at all open to interpretation?

    I mean, even this inept excuse for a goverment is not going to say "We'd like to revoke A50, possibly." Or "We wish to revoke A50 on condition that you increase our rebate". But if it did, then there could be no argument - the revocation on either of those terms would not be "unequivocal and unconditional" - no one could have any complaint about that.

    More likely though is that they simply say "We revoke A50". No court, not even the evil ECJ, could say that that is equivocal or conditional.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,459
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    That's not entirely unfair. As an intellectual exercise, if we assume both that the UK and Ireland regard themselves as bound by all the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that this agreement is permanent and unalterable, then neither the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland are completely sovereign. Rather, they operate as a co-dependent pair, with power of veto over some of each others' actions.

    One wonders whether or not either John Major or Tony Blair fully appreciated what it was they were signing up to?
    It has been suggested that a British Isles referendum would have been a better idea (though Ireland has the Euro, so maybe not!). The result would have been very close. I guess Ireland would have been oppose in case leave won and UK leavers would have objected as they'd have seen it as a way of increasing the remain vote.
    That, of course, would've been a very silly proposition. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that Ireland has ever seriously contemplated leaving, and Brexit is and has never been their problem to solve.

    On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)

    FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    edited December 2018
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Ydoethur said
    '
    'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'

    With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.

    You are denying you wished to see Theresa May go blind? You admitted the other one (or some form of bodily harm) yesterday!
    I said no such thing about Jeremy Corbyn being blown up. In my anger at his failure to stop the 2017 election I did say that Labour's best interests at that point would be well served by his becoming incapacitated through serious illness.I lost my rag and fully accept that I was wrong to comment like that.
    Nevertheless this is the second time within 24 hours that you have played 'fast and loose' with facts. Yesreday you were spouting gibberish re-A level grades prior to 1990.
    You still haven't commented on May and your wish for her to go blind.

    If you consider you know more about qualifications in the 60s than say, Eric Hobsbawm, carry on telling yourself that. It will make no difference to the facts, but it may make you feel better (out of curiosity, did you fail your A-levels given how strongly you feel about this)?

    As for playing fast and loose with facts, being accused of that by you is a bit like being accused by Amanda Spielman of being utterly incompetent.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    edited December 2018
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Ydoethur said
    '
    'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'

    With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.

    You are denying you wished to see Theresa May go blind? You admitted the other one (or some form of bodily harm) yesterday!
    I said no such thing about Jeremy Corbyn being blown up. In my anger at his failure to stop the 2017 election I did say that Labour's best interests at that point would be well served by his becoming incapacitated through serious illness.I lost my rag and fully accept that I was wrong to comment like that.
    Nevertheless this is the second time within 24 hours that you have played 'fast and loose' with facts. Yesreday you were spouting gibberish re-A level grades prior to 1990.
    And all this because I pointed out that these ilk were doing none of us any favours! Let the ilk live, for all I care. Just don't blame me when it turns out that ilk are behind the next piece of bad news...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,841

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    How on earth can you say that the EU is attempting to annex a part of the UK?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346


    How would you word a revocation to make it in any way equivocal or conditional and that equivocation or condition be in at all open to interpretation?

    I mean, even this inept excuse for a goverment is not going to say "We'd like to revoke A50, possibly." Or "We wish to revoke A50 on condition that you increase our rebate". But if it did, then there could be no argument - the revocation on either of those terms would not be "unequivocal and unconditional" - no one could have any complaint about that.

    More likely though is that they simply say "We revoke A50". No court, not even the evil ECJ, could say that that is equivocal or conditional.

    The point is we don't make that judgement, the ECJ does. So you can't say it's completely unilateral.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    One of the ripostes of remainers during the referendum was "but we are sovereign." Well, clearly they think there should be limits to our sovereignty. This is fine, but perhaps they should be more honest about what they think the UK can and can't do.

    That's not entirely unfair. As an intellectual exercise, if we assume both that the UK and Ireland regard themselves as bound by all the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that this agreement is permanent and unalterable, then neither the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland are completely sovereign. Rather, they operate as a co-dependent pair, with power of veto over some of each others' actions.

    One wonders whether or not either John Major or Tony Blair fully appreciated what it was they were signing up to?
    It has been suggested that a British Isles referendum would have been a better idea (though Ireland has the Euro, so maybe not!). The result would have been very close. I guess Ireland would have been oppose in case leave won and UK leavers would have objected as they'd have seen it as a way of increasing the remain vote.
    That, of course, would've been a very silly proposition. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that Ireland has ever seriously contemplated leaving, and Brexit is and has never been their problem to solve.

    On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)

    FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.
    A federal UK along those lines would be a sensible future state imo.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,843

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    Are you actually suggesting perpetual limbo as the 'deal'? I think that might be quite inspired.

    A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.

    Your post is a very good one indeed.


  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    Omnium said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    Are you actually suggesting perpetual limbo as the 'deal'? I think that might be quite inspired.

    A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.

    Your post is a very good one indeed.


    Another person come round to May's deal? The trend is clear.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    I do wonder if the EU is being recklessly complacent in forgetting the Loyalist paramilitary groups and their potential reaction. It wasn't just the IRA that went around killing people.
    Indeed. They seem to have decided Ireland is their side so they will 100% back Ireland and screw the Brits.

    And they wonder why Unionists object?
    Well, in fairness, Ireland is their side.

    But I still think they are being very foolhardy and provocative. The reason the GFA survived is becuase it was seen as a fair settlement. Imposing one that one side, however wrongly, considers unequal or inimical is reckless.

    I don't think it helps either that Selmayr, who is rumoured to be behind this process, saw East and West Germany successfully reunited and has no understanding of how very different matters are in Ireland.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Ydoethur said
    '
    'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'

    With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.

    You are denying you wished to see Theresa May go blind? You admitted the other one (or some form of bodily harm) yesterday!
    I said no such thing about Jeremy Corbyn being blown up. In my anger at his failure to stop the 2017 election I did say that Labour's best interests at that point would be well served by his becoming incapacitated through serious illness.I lost my rag and fully accept that I was wrong to comment like that.
    Nevertheless this is the second time within 24 hours that you have played 'fast and loose' with facts. Yesreday you were spouting gibberish re-A level grades prior to 1990.
    You still haven't commented on May and your wish for her to go blind.

    If you consider you know more about qualifications in the 60s than say, Eric Hobsbawm, carry on telling yourself that. It will make no difference to the facts, but it may make you feel better (out of curiosity, did you fail your A-levels given how strongly you feel about this)?

    As for playing fast and loose with facts, being accused of that by you is a bit like being accused by Amanda Spielman of being utterly incompetent.
    Not just to go blind, but also to become an amputee.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,959
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Ydoethur said
    '
    'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'

    With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.

    You are denying you wished to see Theresa May go blind? You admitted the other one (or some form of bodily harm) yesterday!
    I said no such thing about Jeremy Corbyn being blown up. In my anger at his failure to stop the 2017 election I did say that Labour's best interests at that point would be well served by his becoming incapacitated through serious illness.I lost my rag and fully accept that I was wrong to comment like that.
    Nevertheless this is the second time within 24 hours that you have played 'fast and loose' with facts. Yesreday you were spouting gibberish re-A level grades prior to 1990.
    You still haven't commented on May and your wish for her to go blind.

    If you consider you know more about qualifications in the 60s than say, Eric Hobsbawm, carry on telling yourself that. It will make no difference to the facts, but it may make you feel better (out of curiosity, did you fail your A-levels given how strongly you feel about this)?

    As for playing fast and loose with facts, being accused of that by you is a bit like being accused by Amanda Spielman of being utterly incompetent.
    No I did not fail any A levels. Your ignorance of psephology and individual constituency results at the 2017 election I was very happy to expose in the summer of last year.
    I would ,however, expect that someone who has spent so much of his time in Academia to be au fait with data readily available on the internet which reveals that until the late 1980s 30 % of A Level entrants failed to achieve a grade E pass - ie 30% were awarded an O level pass or failed outright. Today a mere 2.5% fail to gain at least an E grade.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346



    That, of course, would've been a very silly proposition. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that Ireland has ever seriously contemplated leaving, and Brexit is and has never been their problem to solve.

    On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)

    FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.

    A federal UK along those lines would be a sensible future state imo.
    The unequal size of the units makes this structure quite unlikely.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    RobD said:


    How would you word a revocation to make it in any way equivocal or conditional and that equivocation or condition be in at all open to interpretation?

    I mean, even this inept excuse for a goverment is not going to say "We'd like to revoke A50, possibly." Or "We wish to revoke A50 on condition that you increase our rebate". But if it did, then there could be no argument - the revocation on either of those terms would not be "unequivocal and unconditional" - no one could have any complaint about that.

    More likely though is that they simply say "We revoke A50". No court, not even the evil ECJ, could say that that is equivocal or conditional.

    The point is we don't make that judgement, the ECJ does. So you can't say it's completely unilateral.
    The ECJ itself has said that A50 "allows that Member State... to revoke that notification unilaterally"

    The revocation process would not go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity of any A50 revocation. Unless the government was stupid enough to include some clear equivocation or condition or had been seen not to have "taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements" there would be no grounds.

    As an aside, if we did revoke A50 we could be treated to the delicious irony of Rees-Mogg and co going to the ECJ to ask them to overturn a legitimate action of the UK Parliament! :lol:
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,843
    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    Are you actually suggesting perpetual limbo as the 'deal'? I think that might be quite inspired.

    A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.

    Your post is a very good one indeed.


    Another person come round to May's deal? The trend is clear.
    I've supported May's deal from day one. There is no trend, quite the reverse.

    However Mr T has suggested (I think) a better alternative - a progressive divergence. We just legislate and agree where we want to diverge. I've not seen that suggested before, but I do think it's a good path.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    RobD said:



    That, of course, would've been a very silly proposition. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that Ireland has ever seriously contemplated leaving, and Brexit is and has never been their problem to solve.

    On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)

    FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.

    A federal UK along those lines would be a sensible future state imo.
    The unequal size of the units makes this structure quite unlikely.
    Population of California = 39.5m
    Population of Wyoming = 0.6m
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    edited December 2018
    justin124 said:

    No I did not fail any A levels. Your ignorance of psephology and individual constituency results at the 2017 election I was very happy to expose in the summer of last year.
    I would ,however, expect that someone who has spent so much of his time in Academia to be au fait with data readily available on the internet which reveals that until the late 1980s 30 % of A Level entrants failed to achieve a grade E pass - ie 30% were awarded an O level pass or failed outright. Today a mere 2.5% fail to gain at least an E grade.

    Which you fail to link to. Why?

    Just as you failed to link to the data supporting your claim a merged Preseli and Ceredigion would be a Labour gain rather than a Conservative hold.

    Or claiming you knew more about Winston Churchill's political allegiance in 1924 than he did.

    And again, you haven't addressed Theresa May and your wish for ill on her. Indeed, you seem to be avoiding the subject. So far as I am aware, you have never apologised for that even when a huge number of posters including Labour posters criticised you for it.

    As for your claims on constituency results, I have no clue what you're talking about.

    You can be interesting, and you are clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable but more often you spend your time just nitpicking (often wrongly) and being, well, a bit odd.

    I have to go but I hope that gives you food for thought.

    Have a good evening.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263
    RobD said:



    That, of course, would've been a very silly proposition. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that Ireland has ever seriously contemplated leaving, and Brexit is and has never been their problem to solve.

    On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)

    FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.

    A federal UK along those lines would be a sensible future state imo.
    The unequal size of the units makes this structure quite unlikely.
    More workable than a federation might be independent sovereign states with a new treaty establishing a special relationship in defence and foreign policy.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,610

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    In return for Ireland releasing its claim to be the ultimate sovereign of Northern Ireland, the GFA allowed Ireland a degree of influence over Northern Ireland. This meant that the annexation of which you speak has already taken place, albeit in a small way.

    Whilst the UK was more powerful than Ireland this was not a problem, as the bodies involved were small and uncontroversial. But now that the EU is on Ireland's side and the power balance has shifted, this arrangement is a problem.

    If you genuinely want to prevent any annexation, then tear up the GFA and build a physical border and enforce it. But as long as the GFA exists and the blurring of sovereignty it implies, then you will have this problem.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    RobD said:


    How would you word a revocation to make it in any way equivocal or conditional and that equivocation or condition be in at all open to interpretation?

    I mean, even this inept excuse for a goverment is not going to say "We'd like to revoke A50, possibly." Or "We wish to revoke A50 on condition that you increase our rebate". But if it did, then there could be no argument - the revocation on either of those terms would not be "unequivocal and unconditional" - no one could have any complaint about that.

    More likely though is that they simply say "We revoke A50". No court, not even the evil ECJ, could say that that is equivocal or conditional.

    The point is we don't make that judgement, the ECJ does. So you can't say it's completely unilateral.
    The ECJ itself has said that A50 "allows that Member State... to revoke that notification unilaterally"

    The revocation process would not go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity of any A50 revocation. Unless the government was stupid enough to include some clear equivocation or condition or had been seen not to have "taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements" there would be no grounds.

    As an aside, if we did revoke A50 we could be treated to the delicious irony of Rees-Mogg and co going to the ECJ to ask them to overturn a legitimate action of the UK Parliament! :lol:
    Yet they themselves apply conditions to that supposedly unconditional right. Of course it wouldn't go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity. The most likely body to do so would be the EU Council.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    RobD said:



    That, of course, would've been a very silly proposition. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that Ireland has ever seriously contemplated leaving, and Brexit is and has never been their problem to solve.

    On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)

    FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.

    A federal UK along those lines would be a sensible future state imo.
    The unequal size of the units makes this structure quite unlikely.
    Population of California = 39.5m
    Population of Wyoming = 0.6m
    There are fifty states. That comparison would be more appropriate if the US consisted of California, Wyoming, and the two Dakotas.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 475
    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    How would you word a revocation to make it in any way equivocal or conditional and that equivocation or condition be in at all open to interpretation?

    I mean, even this inept excuse for a goverment is not going to say "We'd like to revoke A50, possibly." Or "We wish to revoke A50 on condition that you increase our rebate". But if it did, then there could be no argument - the revocation on either of those terms would not be "unequivocal and unconditional" - no one could have any complaint about that.

    More likely though is that they simply say "We revoke A50". No court, not even the evil ECJ, could say that that is equivocal or conditional.

    The point is we don't make that judgement, the ECJ does. So you can't say it's completely unilateral.
    The ECJ itself has said that A50 "allows that Member State... to revoke that notification unilaterally"

    The revocation process would not go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity of any A50 revocation. Unless the government was stupid enough to include some clear equivocation or condition or had been seen not to have "taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements" there would be no grounds.

    As an aside, if we did revoke A50 we could be treated to the delicious irony of Rees-Mogg and co going to the ECJ to ask them to overturn a legitimate action of the UK Parliament! :lol:
    Yet they themselves apply conditions to that supposedly unconditional right. Of course it wouldn't go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity. The most likely body to do so would be the EU Council.
    "Yet they themselves apply conditions to that supposedly unconditional right." Those are...?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    How would you word a revocation to make it in any way equivocal or conditional and that equivocation or condition be in at all open to interpretation?

    I mean, even this inept excuse for a goverment is not going to say "We'd like to revoke A50, possibly." Or "We wish to revoke A50 on condition that you increase our rebate". But if it did, then there could be no argument - the revocation on either of those terms would not be "unequivocal and unconditional" - no one could have any complaint about that.

    More likely though is that they simply say "We revoke A50". No court, not even the evil ECJ, could say that that is equivocal or conditional.

    The point is we don't make that judgement, the ECJ does. So you can't say it's completely unilateral.
    The ECJ itself has said that A50 "allows that Member State... to revoke that notification unilaterally"

    The revocation process would not go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity of any A50 revocation. Unless the government was stupid enough to include some clear equivocation or condition or had been seen not to have "taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements" there would be no grounds.

    As an aside, if we did revoke A50 we could be treated to the delicious irony of Rees-Mogg and co going to the ECJ to ask them to overturn a legitimate action of the UK Parliament! :lol:
    Yet they themselves apply conditions to that supposedly unconditional right. Of course it wouldn't go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity. The most likely body to do so would be the EU Council.
    "Yet they themselves apply conditions to that supposedly unconditional right." Those are...?
    That it must be unequivocal and unconditional, lol. It's not a unilateral decision if someone else can decide whether or not they agree with it.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Donny43 said:

    FPT:

    Donny43 said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    ;
    I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.

    The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
    But they cannot stop us revoking
    The countries can't. The ECJ can.
    They have made their judgement, here it is:

    "Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
    And who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
    The two parties (UK government and EU Council) would judge and accept. There may be appeals from spoilers but they would get nowhere. The caravan will have moved on.
    But what if the UK thinks it is unequivocal but the council does not? Then the ECJ decides.
    How would you word a revocation to make it in any way equivocal or conditional and that equivocation or condition be in at all open to interpretation?
    By leaving the EU(NOW)A and EU(W)A on the statute books, for a start.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    Are you actually suggesting perpetual limbo as the 'deal'? I think that might be quite inspired.

    A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.

    Your post is a very good one indeed.


    Another person come round to May's deal? The trend is clear.
    I've supported May's deal from day one. There is no trend, quite the reverse.

    However Mr T has suggested (I think) a better alternative - a progressive divergence. We just legislate and agree where we want to diverge. I've not seen that suggested before, but I do think it's a good path.
    That's having our cake and eating it, which is good for us, but the EU quite reasonably cannot allow countries to pick the benefits it wants and disregard the obligations.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,959
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    No I did not fail any A levels. Your ignorance of psephology and individual constituency results at the 2017 election I was very happy to expose in the summer of last year.
    I would ,however, expect that someone who has spent so much of his time in Academia to be au fait with data readily available on the internet which reveals that until the late 1980s 30 % of A Level entrants failed to achieve a grade E pass - ie 30% were awarded an O level pass or failed outright. Today a mere 2.5% fail to gain at least an E grade.

    Which you fail to link to. Why?

    Just as you failed to link to the data supporting your claim a merged Preseli and Ceredigion would be a Labour gain rather than a Conservative hold.

    Or claiming you knew more about Winston Churchill's political allegiance in 1924 than he did.

    And again, you haven't addressed Theresa May and your wish for ill on her. Indeed, you seem to be avoiding the subject. So far as I am aware, you have never apologised for that even when a huge number of posters including Labour posters criticised you for it.

    As for your claims on constituency results, I have no clue what you're talking about.

    You can be interesting, and you are clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable but more often you spend your time just nitpicking (often wrongly) and being, well, a bit odd.

    I have to go but I hope that gives you food for thought.

    Have a good evening.
    Full A Level details are on Wilkipedia GCE Advanced Level (United Kingdom)
    I gave you the detailed results of various constituencies in 2017 - all of which flatly contradicted your assertions which included suggestions that Cabinet Ministers were less likely to suffer major adverse swings. I pointed out that Ben Gummer lost his seat , Justine Greening came close to losing Putney and Amber Rudd barely held on in Hastings & Rye. You appeared totally unaware of the narrow squeaks of Stephen Crabb in Preseli Pembrokeshire and the Tory in Telford.
    As for being odd , perhaps you need to spend a bit more time in front of the mirror rather than depressing the pedals of your organ.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,843
    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.

    Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.

    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    Are you actually suggesting perpetual limbo as the 'deal'? I think that might be quite inspired.

    A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.

    Your post is a very good one indeed.


    Another person come round to May's deal? The trend is clear.
    I've supported May's deal from day one. There is no trend, quite the reverse.

    However Mr T has suggested (I think) a better alternative - a progressive divergence. We just legislate and agree where we want to diverge. I've not seen that suggested before, but I do think it's a good path.
    That's having our cake and eating it, which is good for us, but the EU quite reasonably cannot allow countries to pick the benefits it wants and disregard the obligations.
    Well it's Philip_Thompson's idea. I think it has legs.

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,385
    Another straw poll on the road to the Democratic primaries:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/421918-kamala-harris-top-2020-choice-in-poll-of-women-of-color

    Harris dominates, but again good figures for O’Rourke and Biden.
  • sladeslade Posts: 675
    Following on from the Rory Bremner idea that this Christmas has seen the unexpected and illogical birth of baby Brexit to Theresa we can only assume that the angels thought they were supporting a new production in the West End and that the wise men have had their visas cancelled. Meanwhile the sheep are waiting for instructions.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    If May wants her deal to go through parliament with 100% support, just say that a no-deal Brexit may lead to tea shortages.

    No-one wants to risk that.
  • Nigelb said:

    Another straw poll on the road to the Democratic primaries:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/421918-kamala-harris-top-2020-choice-in-poll-of-women-of-color

    Harris dominates, but again good figures for O’Rourke and Biden.

    That's really good for O'Rourke considering only women of colour were polled.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 281
    An embattled PM who squandered their majority has just lost a VONC and been forced to resign having divided the nation on the issue of immigration!

    The UK? No ... Belgium:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/18/belgian-pm-charles-michel-resigns-no-confidence-motion

    Who would have guessed the Belgian government would break before ours did?
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    blueblue said:

    An embattled PM who squandered their majority has just lost a VONC and been forced to resign having divided the nation on the issue of immigration!

    The UK? No ... Belgium:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/18/belgian-pm-charles-michel-resigns-no-confidence-motion

    Who would have guessed the Belgian government would break before ours did?

    I didn't realise Belgium had got round to forming a government...
  • blueblue said:

    An embattled PM who squandered their majority has just lost a VONC and been forced to resign having divided the nation on the issue of immigration!

    The UK? No ... Belgium:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/18/belgian-pm-charles-michel-resigns-no-confidence-motion

    Who would have guessed the Belgian government would break before ours did?

    Nobody surely. The Belgian system of government is famously stable.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,843
    slade said:

    Following on from the Rory Bremner idea that this Christmas has seen the unexpected and illogical birth of baby Brexit to Theresa we can only assume that the angels thought they were supporting a new production in the West End and that the wise men have had their visas cancelled. Meanwhile the sheep are waiting for instructions.

    Jesus - born on Xmas day! How very convenient. Er, but hang on.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    RobD said:

    RobD said:



    That, of course, would've been a very silly proposition. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that Ireland has ever seriously contemplated leaving, and Brexit is and has never been their problem to solve.

    On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)

    FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.

    A federal UK along those lines would be a sensible future state imo.
    The unequal size of the units makes this structure quite unlikely.
    Population of California = 39.5m
    Population of Wyoming = 0.6m
    There are fifty states. That comparison would be more appropriate if the US consisted of California, Wyoming, and the two Dakotas.
    A fairer collection of four states, with relative population ratios closer to the UK would be California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii. Now you're not going to convince me that that couldn't work as a USWA.

    (If you want to get the population ratios closer to England, Scotland, Wales and NI, swap New Mexico in for Washington.)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.



    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    Are you actually suggesting perpetual limbo as the 'deal'? I think that might be quite inspired.

    A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.

    Your post is a very good one indeed.


    Another person come round to May's deal? The trend is clear.
    I've supported May's deal from day one. There is no trend, quite the reverse.

    However Mr T has suggested (I think) a better alternative - a progressive divergence. We just legislate and agree where we want to diverge. I've not seen that suggested before, but I do think it's a good path.
    That's having our cake and eating it, which is good for us, but the EU quite reasonably cannot allow countries to pick the benefits it wants and disregard the obligations.
    Well it's Philip_Thompson's idea. I think it has legs.

    His process is flawed, but I agree that the concept is the right one. The UK and the EU converged over forty years to the point where our economies, institutions and regulations are now highly integrated. The only sensible way in which this process could be reversed is slowly and progressively, over a fair few years, with the first step being a modest one exiting us from the overarching political framework whilst leaving much of the economic and regulatory integration in place. Actually this is what May has tried to achieve, but the various EEA/CU/Norway permutations also aim for the same thing.

    The problem is that the 'hard' Brexiters know that such a considered process cannot be guaranteed to continue toward their favoured end destination; any future government could put it on hold or into reverse, and public opinion might easily switch if progressive separation from the EU hampers the economy or delivers other unwelcome consequences. Thus they insist we bounce into cold turkey Brexit regardless of the damage it will do, hoping that whatever we manage to salvage from their wreckage wont take us back into the EU. Rarely has any group of politicians exhibited such reckless disregard for the people they claim to represent.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 475
    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
    It's hard to unpick all the continuing subsidies for the old East German provinces, but it's in the high single to low double figures as you indicate.

    Irish reunificiation would also attract (I'm guessing) a lot of funding from both the EU and the US.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
    It's hard to unpick all the continuing subsidies for the old East German provinces, but it's in the high single to low double figures as you indicate.

    Irish reunificiation would also attract (I'm guessing) a lot of funding from both the EU and the US.
    If that's the case, then everyone really ought to be in favour of it!
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926
    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
    Fixing socialism is always expensive.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited December 2018
    tlg86 said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
    It's hard to unpick all the continuing subsidies for the old East German provinces, but it's in the high single to low double figures as you indicate.

    Irish reunificiation would also attract (I'm guessing) a lot of funding from both the EU and the US.
    If that's the case, then everyone really ought to be in favour of it!
    Well, unionists would undoubtedly go round the bend. But with Ireland I think it's daft to rule out what could be a very desirable solution. As I said earlier, RoI is no longer a branch office of the Papacy - it's a modern, secular state that's outperforming it's northern neighbour in every respect. NI would, if it were independent, be running a 27% fiscal deficit. That makes Greece look like the Bundesbank.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,843
    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.



    The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.

    The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.

    Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.

    Are you actually suggesting perpetual limbo as the 'deal'? I think that might be quite inspired.

    A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.

    Your post is a very good one indeed.


    Another person come round to May's deal? The trend is clear.
    I've supported May's deal from day one. There is no trend, quite the reverse.

    However Mr T has suggested (I think) a better alternative - a progressive divergence. We just legislate and agree where we want to diverge. I've not seen that suggested before, but I do think it's a good path.
    That's having our cake and eating it, which is good for us, but the EU quite reasonably cannot allow countries to pick the benefits it wants and disregard the obligations.
    Well it's Philip_Thompson's idea. I think it has legs.

    His process is flawed, but I agree that the concept is the right one. The UK and the EU converged over forty years to the point where our economies, institutions and regulations are now highly integrated. The only sensible way place. Actually this is what May has tried to achieve, but the various EEA/CU/Norway permutations also aim for the same thing.

    The problem is that the 'hard' Brexiters know that such a considered process cannot be guaranteed to continue toward their favoured end destination; any future government could put it on hold or into reverse, and public opinion might easily switch if progressive separation from the EU hampers the economy or delivers other unwelcome consequences. Thus they insist we bounce into cold turkey Brexit regardless of the damage it will do, hoping that whatever we manage to salvage from their wreckage wont take us back into the EU. Rarely has any group of politicians exhibited such reckless disregard for the people they claim to represent.
    I agree mostly.

    You miss the point though. And that is 'Philip_Thompson's idea'.

    It's good. Might not be perfect, but it's good.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
    My simple maths re the cost of a united Ireland:

    ROI population 4.9m, GDP per capita 2018 est = $80,000
    NI population 1.9m, GVA per capita (2016 est) = $25,000

    If for simplicity we treat GVA and GDP as equivalents (I know, I know):
    All Ireland population 6.8m, GDP per capita = circa $65,000.

    Great for NI; not really unbearable for ROI.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    NI voted to Remain
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,459
    RobD said:

    There are fifty states. That comparison would be more appropriate if the US consisted of California, Wyoming, and the two Dakotas.

    There's no particular reason why an asymmetric federation couldn't work, so long as the balance of powers between the constituent parts was right. In our case, it would need to be loose, the four parts agreeing that there was sufficient mutual interest in terms of a community guaranteeing freedom of movement and settlement and no hard internal frontiers, a shared defence and security capacity and a common currency, whilst retaining broad freedom of action with respect to internal affairs (such that the smaller members would not feel dominated, and England would not feel that its much larger population fell under an excessive, undemocratic degree of influence from its partners.)

    In short, this would require the four constituent members to share a head of state, armed forces, security services, an immigration and border policy, control of airspace, a common currency and a common Government to administer these functions. There would also need to be some minimum common standards to allow a single market to operate, a supreme court as now, and it is possible (as per the infamous vow from the Scottish referendum campaign) that the states might wish to share a common system for the provision of state pensions.

    Powers of taxation would need to be split between Westminster and the states, to give the latter a fully autonomous income under their own control, rather than funding by bloc grant which has been the cause of such trouble in the existing, botched devolution settlement. Borrowing powers would also be divided, but the ability of the states to borrow would have to be limited to reduce the risk of some states borrowing recklessly and the others than having to bail them out, as per the Eurozone crisis. A system of fiscal transfers (replacing Barnett) would be needed to help smooth out excessive disparities in wealth and income, although this would also necessarily need to be limited as a guard against policy-driven economic decline in one part of the country leading to its neighbours being bled white to rescue it.

    Most other functions - including anything where federal level co-operation was not deemed essential - would be left to the states. A constitution agreed by all four parties would demarcate the limits of the rights and responsibilities of all concerned, and would specify where the federal Government could act entirely under its own initiative and where it would have to consult the states: I'd consider the power to deploy armed force - where decisive action might very well need to be taken quickly - to be a matter for central Government, but the signature or repeal of international agreements to be something that could be sent to the states for ratification (and, consequently, subject to potential veto.)

    But anyway, that's enough theorising for now.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RoyalBlue said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
    Fixing socialism is always expensive.
    Whereas fixing Brexit costs a fucking fortune.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,843
    Anazina said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    NI voted to Remain
    NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,600
    Anazina said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    sarissa said:

    John_M said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

    To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.

    NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.

    Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.

    Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
    What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?

    .
    No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.
    So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!
    Fixing socialism is always expensive.
    Whereas fixing Brexit costs a fucking fortune.
    Evidence please
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Omnium said:

    Anazina said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    NI voted to Remain
    NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.
    NI did vote, and voted to remain.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753



    There's no particular reason why an asymmetric federation couldn't work, so long as the balance of powers between the constituent parts was right. In our case, it would need to be loose, the four parts agreeing that there was sufficient mutual interest in terms of a community guaranteeing freedom of movement and settlement and no hard internal frontiers, a shared defence and security capacity and a common currency, whilst retaining broad freedom of action with respect to internal affairs (such that the smaller members would not feel dominated, and England would not feel that its much larger population fell under an excessive, undemocratic degree of influence from its partners.)

    In short, this would require the four constituent members to share a head of state, armed forces, security services, an immigration and border policy, control of airspace, a common currency and a common Government to administer these functions. There would also need to be some minimum common standards to allow a single market to operate, a supreme court as now, and it is possible (as per the infamous vow from the Scottish referendum campaign) that the states might wish to share a common system for the provision of state pensions.

    Powers of taxation would need to be split between Westminster and the states, to give the latter a fully autonomous income under their own control, rather than funding by bloc grant which has been the cause of such trouble in the existing, botched devolution settlement. Borrowing powers would also be divided, but the ability of the states to borrow would have to be limited to reduce the risk of some states borrowing recklessly and the others than having to bail them out, as per the Eurozone crisis. A system of fiscal transfers (replacing Barnett) would be needed to help smooth out excessive disparities in wealth and income, although this would also necessarily need to be limited as a guard against policy-driven economic decline in one part of the country leading to its neighbours being bled white to rescue it.

    Most other functions - including anything where federal level co-operation was not deemed essential - would be left to the states. A constitution agreed by all four parties would demarcate the limits of the rights and responsibilities of all concerned, and would specify where the federal Government could act entirely under its own initiative and where it would have to consult the states: I'd consider the power to deploy armed force - where decisive action might very well need to be taken quickly - to be a matter for central Government, but the signature or repeal of international agreements to be something that could be sent to the states for ratification (and, consequently, subject to potential veto.)

    But anyway, that's enough theorising for now.

    Very sound. Keep a copy, you have drafted the Political Declaration to support the Scottish Withdrawal Agreement! :smile:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    Any news on when Jezza's VoNC debate on Tezza will be held?

    Did someone suggest next Tuesday? :wink:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263
    Omnium said:

    Anazina said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    NI voted to Remain
    NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.
    The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346



    But anyway, that's enough theorising for now.

    Very sound. Keep a copy, you have drafted the Political Declaration to support the Scottish Withdrawal Agreement! :smile:
    Sounds more like what Cameron's renegotiation should have been like :p
    (snipped for brevity)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753

    Omnium said:

    Anazina said:

    There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.

    Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.

    The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.

    image
    If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.

    Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
    NI voted to Remain
    NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.
    The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill
    Now then William, stop introducing inconvenient truths!
This discussion has been closed.