1 The Beeb always fawn over the Govt of the day- and will do as long as they're Govt fundedOriginally 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?
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?
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
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
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.
Well they will be heard loud and clear.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Ha, aye, I was more "asking" rhetorically to express my sheer exasperation.
Cheers, 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?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Perhaps not when it's time to submit the annual accounts?
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?
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.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 12/12/2017 at 3:58 PM.
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.
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.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
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
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 border
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.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks