Brexit: Now What? Part III

[abaddon]

That Irish border will be a bootlegger and smugglers dream. Any price differences will see booze, tobacco and fuel flowing across. It will be impossible to police.

Everyone and his dog knows that. Along with booze, tobacco and fuel, there will be drugs and frakkin' people. Yet brexiteers think somehow this will not happen because rainbows and unicorns.

 

[jimbob]

We (the UK) don't want to control the movement of goods between Ireland and the UK, so that's not a concern to us.

We do want to control the movement of people, but we also don't want to cause tension - and perhaps eventually fighting/war by scrapping the Good Friday Agreement - so we have to consider the pros and cons.

We've determined that the installation of hard physical infrastructure at the border is likely to provoke violence so we think it better not to do that, and instead attempt to police the movement of people across the border by softer means. We can hope to find most people illegally living or working on the UK side of the border by means of employment records, tax returns, housing records, bank accounts and similar. Of course that won't catch 100% of illegal immigrants, but neither does a hard border. Admittedly the soft border will be more porous to illegal migration than a hard border but we consider that a price worth paying to hopefully preserve peace.

If the EU insist in installing hard border infrastructure on their side, then they need to raise the money to build it and convince the Irish that it's necessary. If it does get built and, regrettably, result in conflict and violence, then unfortunately both sides will have to deal with that. This would be a terrible tragedy so I hope the EU won't be so stupid as to go down that road; I don't have much confidence in the EU behaving sensibly though so I pin my hopes more on the Irish people and government refusing to install such a dangerous folly - regardless of the EU's demands.

That Irish border will be a bootlegger and smugglers dream. Any price differences will see booze, tobacco and fuel flowing across. It will be impossible to police.

Everyone and his dog knows that. Along with booze, tobacco and fuel, there will be drugs and frakkin' people. Yet brexiteers think somehow this will not happen because rainbows and unicorns.

I've tried colour-coding the posts - I think I have identified teh rainbows and unicorns.

It does look as though the Border might be a big stumbling block.

 

[Garrison]

More Brexit woes for May, you would think her party doesn't trust her for some reason...

Hostile Tory rebels delay flagship Brexit bill

In total 300 amendments and 54 new clauses have been tabled to the bill, which transfers European law onto the domestic statute book after Brexit, underlining the resistance within the Commons from both opposition parties and some Conservative MPs.

 

[ceptimus]

Specifically how are the EU in breach of article 50?

You can read Article 50 and see for yourself. It says that discussions about arrangements after exit should happen and says nothing about the discussions being stalled until the leaving country agrees to hand over money. The EU just made up their agenda for the Brexit negotiations - and we never should have begun talks until they removed their made-up-out-of-nowhere conditions. Too late now. There will be no sanctions against the EU for breaching the terms of their own Article 50.

 

[ceptimus]

After all people voted Leave on the promise we would get a better deal than we had, not no deal whatsoever.

Not true. The referendum question was very clear and made no such promise. The government spent a lot of our own money informing everyone that they thought we'd be worse off if we voted to leave. A glossy brochure was delivered to every household in the country spelling out the government case for remain. Business, TV, and institutions like the Bank of England were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining.

The people, as you know, voted to leave anyway. Most of the posters in these threads have been doing their utmost to deny the democratic will of the people ever since.

 

[Garrison]

Not true. The referendum question was very clear and made no such promise.

This is a bizarre statement, are you trying to pretend now that the Leave campaign didn't make that very promise? Oh but I forget you would prefer everyone to believe that Leave voters supported a diamond hard Brexit regardless of the economic consequences.

You can read Article 50 and see for yourself. It says that discussions about arrangements after exit should happen and says nothing about the discussions being stalled until the leaving country agrees to hand over money.

You really need to try and grasp this, until the financial details are settled there is no way to discuss what those post Brexit arrangements might be. What money the UK pays will have a direct bearing on what we will and won't have access to after Brexit.

 

[Giz]

You really need to try and grasp this, until the financial details are settled there is no way to discuss what those post Brexit arrangements might be. What money the UK pays will have a direct bearing on what we will and won't have access to after Brexit.

You contradict yourself.

If "What money the UK pays will have a direct bearing on what we will and won't have access to after Brexit." then the EU should just give the UK the menu and let them know what they can buy.

 

[Wudang]

You contradict yourself.

If "What money the UK pays will have a direct bearing on what we will and won't have access to after Brexit." then the EU should just give the UK the menu and let them know what they can buy.

Wrong way round. The bill is for things we agreed to pay for when we were members of the EU, e.g. funding for joint agencies etc many of which were based in the UK, Nigel Farage's pension etc. Not many places want to discuss future bookings with people reluctant to pay for agreements already entered into.

 

[Information Analyst]

The people, as you know, voted to leave anyway. Most of the posters in these threads have been doing their utmost to deny the democratic will of the people ever since.

Just as you have been doing your utmost to ignore the wishes of the >48% of votes who were against it.

 

[ceptimus]

Just as you have been doing your utmost to ignore the wishes of the >48% of votes who were against it.

In a democracy, when a binary decision is made, then the choice has to be what the 52% voted for, not the 48%.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You can read Article 50 and see for yourself. It says that discussions about arrangements after exit should happen and says nothing about the discussions being stalled until the leaving country agrees to hand over money. The EU just made up their agenda for the Brexit negotiations - and we never should have begun talks until they removed their made-up-out-of-nowhere conditions. Too late now. There will be no sanctions against the EU for breaching the terms of their own Article 50.

I did read article 50 for myself that's why I asked. It deals with arrangements for exiting not future trade agreements. It seems that made up out of nowhere describes the position of some party here but I'm not sure it's the EU

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In a democracy, when a binary decision is made, then the choice has to be what the 52% voted for, not the 48%.

A good few of that 52% no longer need to have their will respected as their will no longer exists.

In any case pointing out that 52% of people voted for idiocy is not denying their will.

 

[Aber]

I did read article 50 for myself that's why I asked. It deals with arrangements for exiting not future trade agreements. It seems that made up out of nowhere describes the position of some party here but I'm not sure it's the EU

Article 50 does include:

taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

 

[The Don]

In a democracy, when a binary decision is made, then the choice has to be what the 52% voted for, not the 48%.

The thing is that the 52% didn't all vote for the same thing.

• Some voted just to give "the establishment" a bloody nose
• Some voted to ensure that the NHS would get an additional £350m a week
• Some voted to leave the EU but remain within the EEA - a Norway-style Brexit
• Some voted for a diamond-hard Brexit
• Some voted to have all foreigners sent back to where they came from the day after the Brexit vote

Whatever Brexit we end up with, at least some of those who voted Leave will be deeply dissatisfied with it.

I'm also amazed that the view in the government is "Brexit at any cost". If the outcome of Brexit appears to be the complete collapse of the UK economy, widespread shortages of consumer goods, fuel and food, power cuts and so on I don't understand how a government could proceed.

 

[ceptimus]

Desperate pseudo logic there. However you try to twist things, the majority voted to leave. I know you want to remain or "leave" in a manner that is roughly equivalent to remaining. If you get that then it will be be a defeat for democracy.

 

[The Don]

Desperate pseudo logic there. However you try to twist things, the majority voted to leave. I know you want to remain or "leave" in a manner that is roughly equivalent to remaining. If you get that then it will be be a defeat for democracy.

By that measure If we end up with a diamond-hard Brexit then that too would be a defeat for democracy because a significant proportion of those who voted leave did so on the proviso that:

• We'd stay in the EEA and/or
• £350m a week would immediately be made available to the NHS and/or
• The UK wouldn't suffer an economic reversal and/or
• We'd have a better deal on trade with the EU than we currently have and/or
• All foreigners would be rounded up and shipped home

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Article 50 does include:

Which says nothing about negotiating future trade arrangements.

 

[Aber]

Which says nothing about negotiating future trade arrangements.

Or agreeing future citizen rights, or lots of other detail...

 

[ceptimus]

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

The bit the EU is in breach of is under part 2 where it says, "...the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

The EU have argued that the sentence should be interpreted as, "setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, and only then take account of the framework for its future relationship."

I think the EU interpretation is not consistent with either the text or the spirit of the article, but like I said, I don't expect the EU to change its negotiating tactics, and I don't think there are enough grounds to mount a legal challenge against the EU which in any case would have to come before an EU court.

 

[Giz]

Wrong way round. The bill is for things we agreed to pay for when we were members of the EU, e.g. funding for joint agencies etc many of which were based in the UK, Nigel Farage's pension etc. Not many places want to discuss future bookings with people reluctant to pay for agreements already entered into.

Dude, take it up with Garrison.