Printable View
Even if the DUP's confidence and supply arrangement was to come to an end in the near future, excluding the north from a clean break would require the approval of the Stormont assembly and executive, so I'm thinking the DUP would presumably have that as a back-up veto.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I think it's a good deal for the UK in the sense that it more or less saves it from the madness of a hard Brexit. It is a bad day for the DUP and hard Brexiteers, mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
Fintan O'Toole agrees: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...exit-1.3320096
The full piece is excellent and well worth a read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintan O'Toole
I think that one of the issues for the DUP was that, whatever happens, they didn't want to be treated in any way differently or considered separately from the rest of the UK, which they've got, for the moment at least.
I imagine the Brexiteers in Britain are dreaming of getting rid of NI today. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
If (or when) at some point in the future, the UK, including NI, decides that 'distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland', thus freeing itself from the stranglehold outlined by O'Toole above, what impact will that have on the (rest of the) UK's ability to vary from the rules of the internal market and customs union?
I ask because of this line (in bold), put in to assuage the fears of the DUP:What does 'in all circumstances' mean? Does it mean up until (but not beyond) the UK including NI deciding that 'distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland'? Or does it refer to even after such a decision was made?Quote:
"In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market"
Because if it refers to a future even after such a decision was made, and 'unfettered access' mean that NI and the rest of the UK must be identical in terms of rules and regulations, then the UK would never be free to change its rules and regulations.
I suppose I should have said that the deal looks better for Ireland than the Monday one. I should realise that doesn't necessarily make it bad for the UK, just a specific kind of outlook in the UK.
The entire 90 year history of NI is one of being treated differently from ES&W. Devolution decades before anywhere else, separate party system, 30 year civil war. An effective sea border during WW2 as well as the Troubles (as per Newton Emerson quoted above). Compared with all that, abortion and marriage are small beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Put simply Unionism has always been mainly about separatism from Dublin.
Today's deal is a capitulation because the Brexit project is essentially finished - in so far as the UK will most likely remain fully aligned to the single market and customs union (whilst now having no say in their nature and operation?) - but it's all being portrayed as a success for May whilst disgruntled Tories are keeping their concerns private. Has Rees-Mogg commented yet? Like Farage, he's sure to be livid, but he seems to be lying low.
There's a lot of perception management going on, which undoubtedly influences the general British public's interpretation and mood. It's difficult for opposition to fight against that when a total capitulation is being disingenuously framed as a triumph by the media. The ambiguity of the language of the agreed text (which allows Brexiteers to say they're still leaving the single market and customs union, whilst commentators like Fintan O'Toole can, at the same time, compellingly argue that Brexit is in fact finished) represents an essential failure on the part of the British government, but that very failure is frustratingly enabling the government to simultaneously claim "success" and that's what people are hearing today. It's paradoxical and galling that the British government's "success" appears to be its failure!
The DUP were shown up goodo today. It was so enjoyable to watch them squirm there way into some sort victorious stance. Even in the end they were still saying they weren't happy with what had been agreed and accused Leo and Co for being aggressive and bullies.
I have to say the whole episode has shown that Varadkar and Coveney really know how to play senior hurling. It's great. Been a great week of politics.
To be fair, there's another reason why they'd be able to outhurl Arlene and co.
The DUP has done us a big favour. Not only have they protected our interests, they have advanced them to effectively maintain the current status quo with the North and now the rest of the UK. What the UK can independently do in the future will now be severely curtailed to align with the customs union and single market, of which Ireland has a say and the UK doesn't.
Tiocfaidh Arlene!Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
I do have some sympathy for those who voted Leave in England and now feel somewhat cheated by this outcome. I have even more sympathy for those who voted Remain and now have a kind of '2nd class' status in respect of their rights compared to a unionist in NI who can avail of their entitlement to an Irish passport.
This appears to be a commitment that there will be no hard border even if the worst possible eventuality transpires and the UK and EU can't agree a trade deal. I heard Varadkar confirming the same on the radio a while ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
Actually, Nigel Dodds was on BBC NI's 'Newsline' yesterday evening (at 5m10s in link) claiming that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and that yesterday's paper "will disappear" if there is no final trade deal. His prioritisation of getting to phase two of talks ahead of border clarity was undoubted hard Brexiteering and his words yesterday worryingly appear to fly in the face of Varadkar's words (and indeed the words of the document itself). Varadkar said the commitments agreed by the UK were "bulletproof", but has he forgotten who he's dealing with?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
This morning then, we have Michael Gove telling British voters that they "can change the EU deal if they don't like it" and that the UK will have "full freedom to diverge from EU law on the single market and customs union". Full freedom to diverge is wholly incompatible with full alignment where necessary to maintain a soft border in Ireland.
Andrea Leadsom has been saying similar things to Gove; essentially that the UK could make a deal and then renege on it. What sort of approach is that? The UK would quickly lose whatever credibility it has if it was conduct itself in such a manner. What effect do they think such a duplicitous approach will have on countries considering a future deal with the UK? Nobody will want to make deals with you if you can't be trusted to uphold your side of the bargain.
The sheer quantity of varying interpretations of what yesterday's paper means is astonishing and seriously concerning. Something will have to give eventually.
The difference in the post-agreement words of Varadkar and Foster was very striking in terms of possibly revealing who really came out on top from these negotiations and whose triumphant tone is mere bravado; Varadkar confirmed that "we have achieved all of our goals" whilst Foster admitted that "there are still matters [the DUP] would have liked to see clarified" and that her party had agreed to things about which they weren't wholly satisfied because they "ran out of time essentially". I'm not sure how the DUP can boast victory in light of the wounded reality conceded by Foster's words. Perhaps those who remain somewhat concerned by the multitude of interpretations doing the rounds at the minute can take some comfort in that.
Just reading paragraph 52 of yesterday's paper:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQhlfueWsAEk3Iz.jpg
I'm guessing that could mean that Irish citizens from the north will possibly maintain EU representation and voting rights? I'm pretty sure Guy Verhofstadt had aired that idea before. Meanwhile, whilst British citizenship will no longer be an EU citizenship (meaning no such rights for UK citizens), it does nevertheless seem astonishing that Britain could be tied into the single market and customs union (because the north of Ireland, with which Britain must be aligned, must be tied in to the all-island economy) but have no actual representation to influence the terms of engagement. That's an awful deal really. And what will they pay for the honour of leaving themselves in this significantly worse off position compared to before? Up to £50 billion. You couldn't make this stuff up.
A piece by Jonathan Powell here on the residual concerns over the British government's border assurances: https://www.ft.com/content/5654351e-...5-873e61754ec6Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
"Rejoice! The prime minister has solved the thorny problem of the Northern Ireland border, concluded the divorce negotiations and now we can move on to the sunny uplands of negotiating future trading relations with the EU.
Or has she? In fact, the problem of the border is not resolved at all but simply left hanging. The language on “full alignment” means different things to different people. A series of contradictory undertakings have been given and a new separate strand of negotiation on Ireland opened in the next stage."
Powell was a governmental negotiator and advisor to Tony Blair when the GFA was agreed, so I'd say he knows a thing or too about constructive ambiguity and how it works.
'UK qualifies implications of ‘full alignment’ Brexit pledge': https://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...edge-1.3320823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis Staunton
Was watching Andrew Marr's show on BBC yesterday and he was describing the past week as Theresa May's "best week since she became Prime Minister"...
Why are people and the media fawning over her "negotiation skills"? The deal struck was somewhere between a fudge and a capitulation.
Well they have the EU and therefore us over a barrel. I'm sick to death at this stage. I want them gone.
This deal will last as long as the mathematics in the House of Commons and no longer. It satisfies nobody.
FG have come out of it smelling of roses. Some change in a week. FF on the other hand are in crisis, whether they realise it or not.
With the polls as they are I'd imagine Leo is considering going to the people in the early Spring. If he wants to be the FG leader who puts the soldiers of destiny to the sword he should wait until SF have McDonald in place. FF will find themselves squeezed between a government seen to be performing well, and SF with a fresh faced leader and an agenda of radical change to appeal to the disillusioned and dispossessed.
On the idea discussed above of the north retaining our MEPs, Id fully expect that to be the case. I've had a pet theory for a while that for the European parliament we will end up as a single all island constituency (the current boundaries make no sense at all anyway) with the number of seats apportioned to us to reflect all those in the island who are entitled to Irish citizenship (everybody).
The DUP will go potty but they don't get any say in the internal affairs of the EU post-Brexit.
1 The Beeb always fawn over the Govt of the day- and will do as long as they're Govt fundedQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
2 A large part of the population believe what they read in the Tory-run press, even the obvious nonsense
Wouldn't the actual election be an internal affair?Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
Danny, superb analysis over the last few pages, really great reading.
In the context of an All-Island European Parliament election, what would the potential constituencies be? Potentially Dublin, Belfast, Leinster, Munster, Connaught and Ulster?
The Republic has 8 seats, with the North having 3. Assuming there would be no increase to an all-island total of 11, would be a re-alignment of Dublin 2, Belfast 2, Leinster 2, Munster 2, Ulster 2 and Connaught 1 work and would this Belfast single constituency guarantee a Unionist Seat?
NI won't be in the EU so it won't formally take part in a EU election. If Martina Anderson gets re-elected in Connacht- Ulster instead she can offer to represent Unionist interests. I daresay it'll be politely declined ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
I think an All-island constituency would be the way to go about it to stop any "complications". Postal voting and mobile polling booths could easily be implemented too. Or those at the border could easily pop into their nearest station. Easy Peasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
Well they will be heard loud and clear. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Ha, aye, I was more "asking" rhetorically to express my sheer exasperation. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Cheers, Kingdom!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
If there were two seats available in a Belfast constituency, I think you could safely expect one to be unionist anyway. If there was just one seat available in the constituency, I guess it would depend on the boundaries; the PUL community are now a minority community in the Belfast city council area, although I'm pretty sure they'd form a comfortable enough majority if you included the wider metropolitan area.
I really don't get how the UKGov don't get who they are dealing with it. The EU are so so rigid (most of the time) wrt rules. Why would they change tack now to suit the Brits?
Perhaps not when it's time to submit the annual accounts?Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
The EU is an often chaotically inefficient corporatist bureaucracy. Without endorsing any of the Brit Govt's baloney there must be a chance they'll fudge things.
Quick question for DI and the panel- why would Estonia or Hungary be that bothered about a Hard Irish border as Fintan O'Toole claims?
Has Fintan O'Toole claimed that?
What did O'Toole claim exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
If he has made such a claim, Estonia or Hungary might well be bothered out of a sense of solidarity with an EU ally who is standing up for its interests against an outsider (the UK). They may see Ireland as an ally who'll assist them as part of the larger EU bloc in their time of need at some later point in time. All for one and one for all; that sort of idea perhaps? There would be obvious practical benefit in such an approach.
O'Toole said (in one of his many Radio Ulster interviews in the last week) that all 27 EU members were strongly committed to stopping the Hard Border. After all it fits his broad argument most of which I agree with- if NI is to have the same customs rules as both Dublin AND London then those will be Brussels rules and so a Hard Brexit is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
This might be a careless flight of fancy. Estonia and Hungary have reasons to prefer a pretty cast iron external EU border- Russian Army and foreign migrants, for two- even before you consider that Davy Crockett's divided far might not be that pressing an issue in Narva or Miskolc.
I highly doubt the Estonians are fretting about the Russian Army invading Tallinn through Dublin airport. Where on earth do you come up with this nonsense?
Formally as far as who is concerned? It would be formal and legal to Ireland and the EU. Quite frankly nobody else matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I don't see how the EU's eastern borders would be necessarily affected by what happens between Ireland and the UK though. Preventing a hard border in Ireland relies upon either special status for the north or a soft Brexit for the entire UK, meaning the whole of the island of Ireland (along with Britain potentially) can stay within or aligned to the single market and customs union. Russia and other states to the east of the EU aren't party to the single market or customs union, so states like Estonia or Hungary can still maintain hard boundaries on their eastern borders without issue and in accordance with their presumed wishes. Maintaining a soft or invisible border in Ireland wouldn't necessitate the same in the east as the circumstances of the respective sets of states involved are totally different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
On the other hand, if Britain was to leave the EU, diverge from the single market and customs union and take the north of Ireland with it, that would necessitate a hard border in Ireland. That would be analogous to the situation at present between Estonia and Russia or between Hungary and other non-EU eastern states. However, I think everyone is aware that divergence for the north of Ireland would necessitate a hard border, which is why the north being party to a hard Brexit simply isn't on the table. The EU-UK agreement last week even seemingly stated that a local solution will be found to the Irish border problem no matter what happens and even if there is no overall trade deal.
So I don't see any potential clash of interests or whatever for the likes of Estonia or Hungary. They can support the Irish government (as an EU ally dealing with an outsider) in using its influence to push for either special status for the north of Ireland or a soft Brexit whilst simultaneously maintaining hard boundaries on their own eastern borders with non-EU/SM/CU states; there's no inconsistency there.
Meanwhile, the Common Travel Area remains an arrangement between Ireland and the UK, subject to any decision to the contrary at their mutual behest or subject to any enforced adjustment due to changing circumstances; there'd be no duty upon any other EU state to enter into any similar sort of arrangement with a non-EU state.
Yes and no Danny. There could be objections depending on the future direction the UK chooses to take. If, for example, the UK's future trade deal with the States results in the sale of manky, chlorine-washed chicken in the UK, there might be a need to block the flow of sub-standard produce from the UK via the Irish border into the EU. Therefore, EU agreement to a soft exit and no border in Ireland is dependent on UK alignment to the single market and customs union. The no-border scenario is acceptable to other member states if the UK remains aligned to the EU as there'll be a want to avoid the flow of undercut, sub-standard UK produce entering the EU market.
I agree. That's sort of what I was getting at in my second paragraph in post #276 above where I said that the north being party to a hard Brexit simply isn't a consideration (for the very reason that such would compromise the soft border maintenance plan). Maybe I could have articulated it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
If there was a prospect of the north of Ireland diverging from the SM and CU, other EU states would have justifiable difficulty supporting the promised continuation of an open, invisible border in Ireland under such circumstances; it would, as you say, leave the EU market vulnerable to a flow of sub-standard produce from the UK via the Irish border. That option simply isn't on the table though (or so we hope, judging by last week's agreement which clearly sets down the maintenance of a soft border as a prioritised condition to which all possible outcomes must conform), so I don't think it's really an issue.
The effective EU-UK economic border will be down the Irish Sea with the north remaining in or aligned to the SM and CU (if Stormont consents) or Britain will remain within or aligned to the SM and CU along with the island of Ireland; support for a soft Irish border from other EU states within these potential contexts - where there is either British-Irish alignment or all-island alignment with a hard border down the Irish Sea - can be easily reconciled with those states' wishes to protect the EU market and to maintain hard borders with non-EU states (such as Russia, Serbia or Ukraine) that are not party to or aligned to the SM and CU. There's nothing contradictory or unwittingly reckless about it on the part of other EU states, contrary to what GR had been suggesting.
Didn't I say the Port of Narva, not Dublin? They likely aren't fretting about Ireland at all was my point. Get back to me when you've evolved to read what others actually post.Quote:
Originally Posted by CD
A NI 'constituency' in a EU poll after Brexit isn't as straightforward as you suggest. Either you need a replacement bureaucracy to allow Nordies to vote, even in a single all-island set up with mainly postal votes. Or Southern MEPs would be 'representing' Northern electors who hadn't voted at all. It might be legal but also fairly pointless, even absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by BttW
*Quote:
Originally Posted by DI
I was suggesting mainly that ee and hu just weren't that bothered given their own preoccupations, not a clash of interests. But yes chlorine canned chicken if it really exists could change things.Quote:
Originally Posted by IFK
I didn't suggest it was either of those things, just that other EU countries won't necessarily have the same priorities as someone on the Irish borderQuote:
Originally Posted by DI
I assume O'Toole simply meant that 26 other members of the EU were strongly behind their ally Ireland as a collective bloc, most likely because it's of mutual benefit to Ireland and the 26 others to support one another's interests, particularly when dealing with states outside the bloc. I don't think anyone would pretend that the likes of Hungary or Estonia would have a special or prioritised interest in what's going on along the A1/N1 between Newry and Dundalk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round