Crap deal will fail parliament, new referendum coming: vote Real Brexit!

[GJABS]

Here, let me help:

Thank you. That's a robust explanation - I appreciate the time you've taken to write it.
My thoughts on it as below:

The border is not what is keeping the U.K. in the Customs Union. It’s what is temporarily keeping Northern Ireland in the CU until the UK comes up with a better solution.

You're right, but it remains the case that Northern Ireland is a key part of the UK. So I should amend my statement to say that the IRA will have effectively won in Northern Ireland, even if the rest of the UK is not necessarily bound by the Good Friday Agreement.

The GFA is important, but says nothing about controlling borders.

I think you might be right again. But if the GFA says nothing about borders, then why are the politicians saying that that the instigation of a hard border between northern Ireland and Southern Ireland would be in breach of it?

A key objective of the GFA is, admittedly, peace in NI.

Little known fact though, there were two parties to the violence in Northern Ireland (three if you count the British Army). It wasn’t just the IRA terrorising “us”. If you count “us” as including Northern Irish people.

I do think the IRA were the aggressors though. While I am not an expert in Northern Irish political history the impression I got is that it was the IRA who launched their campaign of terrorism in response to apparent prejudice in the allocation of social housing by the British authorities, and that the loyalist terrorism was in response to the British authorities lack of ability to control it. i.e. had the IRA stopped being violent the loyalists would have stopped, but if the loyalists had stopped being violent the IRA would have continued, because the underlying driver of that violence was continuing.

Define sovereign. Being in a Customs Union is not losing sovereignty, it’s pooling it

That is a euphemism. Or should I say EUphemism. If you are not a member of the EU, but agree to remain in their customs union, then it is the EU that is deciding trade policy. Indeed even if we remained a full member of the EU, the leadership of the EU would decide that trade policy (what tariffs to have with outside non EU countries), and we would not have complete control of its policies in regard to UK trade. So there is a loss of sovereignty as we can't choose to set specific trade policies for the UK without the EU's consent without leaving the customs union. Sovereignty is defined as the ability for a country's law makers to set trade and other policies, and change that policy at any time of its own choosing.

Hmmm. Not sure that diplomacy is your best career choice.

Well I can agree with that

[WTFH]

If the only thing keeping the UK in the customs union is the Irish border, and the Good Friday agreement is what is preventing us having a hard border here, and the reason for keeping the Good Friday agreement is to stop the IRA from terrorising us, then we are letting the IRA in effect tell us that we cannot be a sovereign nation.

i.e. the IRA have defeated us.

There is only therefore one answer to this, and that is to break the Good Friday agreement, put up a hard border there, and let the Irish Republic, the EU, and the IRA, go swivel.

Are you saying that the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent referendum (notice the order) which was voted for by 71% and against by 29% is the reason the IRA "have defeated us"
Or are you saying that the Brexit referendum and subsequent draft agreement is the reason the IRA "have defeated us".

For the first one, the politicians who carried out the negotiations and the voters have accepted responsibility.
For the second one, the voters are blaming the politicians that were not involved in the negotiations and blaming the other side.

The people who voted for Brexit are the ones that are democratically responsible for the current situation. Not the EU, not those who voted against. It's a democracy.

[meridian]

Thank you. That's a robust explanation - I appreciate the time you've taken to write it.
My thoughts on it as below:




You're right, but it remains the case that Northern Ireland is a key part of the UK. So I should amend my statement to say that the IRA will have effectively won in Northern Ireland, even if the rest of the UK is not necessarily bound by the Good Friday Agreement.

English Tories may disagree with you on whether NI is a key part of the U.K. The rest of the U.K. IS bound by the GFA, as it was the U.K. as a whole (via the government) that signed up to it and lodged it with the UN.
One of the features of the negotiations in the GFA was that there were no “winners” and no “losers”, to avoid anyone on either side losing face. Politically this was very important to gain acceptance of the agreement.
The real winners over the past 30 years though have been the people of NI that have been able to live relatively normal lives.

I think you might be right again. But if the GFA says nothing about borders, then why are the politicians saying that that the instigation of a hard border between northern Ireland and Southern Ireland would be in breach of it?

A breach of the spirit of it, and of the implicit agreement. Dublin removed their claim over the 6 counties, in return for Westminster removing the hard border.
If putting a hard border up breaches anything explicitly it is U.K. law in the EU Withdrawal Act which prohibits the creation of any border infrastructure after exit day which did not exist prior to exit day

I do think the IRA were the aggressors though. While I am not an expert in Northern Irish political history the impression I got is that it was the IRA who launched their campaign of terrorism in response to apparent prejudice in the allocation of social housing by the British authorities, and that the loyalist terrorism was in response to the British authorities lack of ability to control it. i.e. had the IRA stopped being violent the loyalists would have stopped, but if the loyalists had stopped being violent the IRA would have continued, because the underlying driver of that violence was continuing.

That’ll be a debate for history. Who arrived in Derry first, the (modern-day incarnation of the) IRA, or the British Army? Who shot first? Who targeted civilians first? Who were the first aggressors?
What was the underlying driver for that violence, and would that underlying driver have been removed by politicians if the violence had simply stopped, or would it have been ignored?

That is a euphemism. Or should I say EUphemism. If you are not a member of the EU, but agree to remain in their customs union, then it is the EU that is deciding trade policy. Indeed even if we remained a full member of the EU, the leadership of the EU would decide that trade policy (what tariffs to have with outside non EU countries), and we would not have complete control of its policies in regard to UK trade. So there is a loss of sovereignty as we can't choose to set specific trade policies for the UK without the EU's consent without leaving the customs union. Sovereignty is defined as the ability for a country's law makers to set trade and other policies, and change that policy at any time of its own choosing.

That’s a very narrow definition of sovereignty in my opinion. I don’t think there is anything wrong in wanting to have more control, as long as everyone realises that there is no such thing as complete sovereignty and that with more control is the trade-off of less co-operation. With the exception of North Korea every country has to follow some rules that have been made by others (WTO, UN, WHO, etc for a start).
If setting your own trade policy (rather than being one of the voices around a table) is the hill you choose, that’s your choice I guess. (Noting, of course, that “the EU” currently setting our trade policy includes us as a member of the EU. It’s not some shadowy organisation “over there”, we’re senior members of it)

[meridian]

That is a euphemism. Or should I say EUphemism. If you are not a member of the EU, but agree to remain in their customs union, then it is the EU that is deciding trade policy. Indeed even if we remained a full member of the EU, the leadership of the EU would decide that trade policy (what tariffs to have with outside non EU countries), and we would not have complete control of its policies in regard to UK trade. So there is a loss of sovereignty as we can't choose to set specific trade policies for the UK without the EU's consent without leaving the customs union. Sovereignty is defined as the ability for a country's law makers to set trade and other policies, and change that policy at any time of its own choosing.

Tell me though, what is it in your life either personally or professionally that makes you so passionate about the U.K. being able to set its own trade policy?

For me, I couldn’t give two hoots about trade policy even though I’m a contractor for a major exporter, so I’m curious as to why this would be so important for you.

[Paddy]

...

[shaunbhoy]

UK Politicians across the entire spectrum are to blame for not being able to come up with a plan that satisfies the wishes of the democratic majority of the people who voted for Brexit. Instead of dithering around trying to score cheap partisan party votes they ought to have united, putting party politics aside (much as the Electorate did) and put together a plan that stood at least SOME hope of being able to get through the House.

ftfy

[WTFH]

ftfy

As ever, the shirker likes to “fix” posts, because he refuses to accept any responsibility for how he voted.

[shaunbhoy]

As ever, the shirker likes to “fix” posts, because he refuses to accept any responsibility for how he voted.

And as ever, the whiney kn0bhead expects the 17m+ that voted to Leave the EU to simply accept a deal that offers less than what we had in the first place while totally ignoring the fact that it has been the gurning losers that have undermined our position from day one by refusing to accept democracy.

[GJABS]

One of the features of the negotiations in the GFA was that there were no “winners” and no “losers”, to avoid anyone on either side losing face. Politically this was very important to gain acceptance of the agreement.
The real winners over the past 30 years though have been the people of NI that have been able to live relatively normal lives.

Not quite. The key thing was to have the -appearance- of no winners or losers. And at the time nobody was aware of the constraints the GFA would have on the UK's ability to leave the customs union (because an EU referendum was not seen at that time as being very likely to occur). But now the reality of the GFA's constraints have been revealed, and the UK side can see that they have become defacto "losers". The visibility is there now.

A breach of the spirit of it, and of the implicit agreement. Dublin removed their claim over the 6 counties, in return for Westminster removing the hard border.
If putting a hard border up breaches anything explicitly it is U.K. law in the EU Withdrawal Act which prohibits the creation of any border infrastructure after exit day which did not exist prior to exit day

So it does breach the GFA (spirit of it does count in my opinion) so that argument is no longer straw-man.
I have not read the EU Withdrawal Act, but if it says the UK is prohibited from putting up any border infrastructure, then whoever wrote it should be shot (not literally) - how can you be an independent country if you don't have a border around it?

That’s a very narrow definition of sovereignty in my opinion. I don’t think there is anything wrong in wanting to have more control, as long as everyone realises that there is no such thing as complete sovereignty and that with more control is the trade-off of less co-operation.

"co-operation" does not mean loss of control. It only means that if the co-operation is forced.
If co-operation is voluntary on an ongoing case by case basis, resulting from dialogue and negotiation, and where each side can choose not to co-operate at any time for any reason, then a country's sovereignty remains intact.
The "co-operation" implied by continued membership of the customs union, is not co-operation at all, it is subservience to whatever trade policies the EU wants to choose to implement, all of the time.

Tell me though, what is it in your life either personally or professionally that makes you so passionate about the U.K. being able to set its own trade policy?

For me, I couldn’t give two hoots about trade policy even though I’m a contractor for a major exporter, so I’m curious as to why this would be so important for you.

I am born British, and I want the British government, to whom I pay taxes and receive state benefits, to be able to control the economy and policies of that country. Of which trade is an important part.


Now if you'll excuse me I have to eat some Sunday lunch. Gammon

[Whorty]

And as ever, the whiney kn0bhead expects the 17m+ that voted to Leave the EU to simply accept a deal that offers less than what we had in the first place while totally ignoring the fact that it has been the gurning losers that have undermined our position from day one by refusing to accept democracy.

Pray tell how we can get better than we have today? How, and why, are the EU going to do this? For once, answer the question rather than your normal boring "FTFY gurn gurn gurn emoji".

17+m voted to 'leave', but they all voted for something different. I hear leavers saying they will take this deal, and I hear leavers saying we need more (I also hear leavers saying they will vote remain next time). So yes, more voted 'leave', but they didn't all vote for the same final deal.