Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

A Remainer would say that. That said, if I was a complete outsider, with a completely open mind and a good understanding of human and political psychology, I might understand that the 52% included a spectrum of Leave beliefs. In the end, the deal we negotiated surely did reflect the 52/48 split. Had it been, say a 67/34 pro-Brexit split, we might have just walked away (not sure about that though).

"Not sure about that" is an under statement. We couldn't have walked away with no deal as it would have breached the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The deal we negotiated was a hard Brexit that did not represent the country's feeling. It's not just about the spectrum of views of the 52% it's about the 100%. Norway had a similar outcome so decided not to join the EU but went for the very close relationship instead. I'm not saying we should have copied Norway but finding something that was more representative of the desire of the UK population as a whole and not of the more extreme right wing of the Conservative Party would have been beneficial. As it is, we'll move that way over time but at a higher economic cost than being there in the first place.
https://www.norway.no/en/missions/eu...ical-overview/

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"Not sure about that" is an under statement. We couldn't have walked away with no deal as it would have breached the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The deal we negotiated was a hard Brexit that did not represent the country's feeling. It's not just about the spectrum of views of the 52% it's about the 100%. Norway had a similar outcome so decided not to join the EU but went for the very close relationship instead. I'm not saying we should have copied Norway but finding something that was more representative of the desire of the UK population as a whole and not of the more extreme right wing of the Conservative Party would have been beneficial. As it is, we'll move that way over time but at a higher economic cost than being there in the first place.
https://www.norway.no/en/missions/eu...ical-overview/

I don't believe that for one moment. A breach by the UK of the NI agreement (NIA) was an entirely confected argument. Article 50 didn't stop us from leaving the EU - in other words it was notwithstanding the NIA.

Had we walked away from the EU, closing the border with Eire would have ben an act of the EU, who were not a party to the NIA except possibly by association with Eire. This onus is what frightened the hell out of Varadkar and we caved.

Are you talking about the Northern Ireland Protocol or the Good Friday Agreement?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you talking about the Northern Ireland Protocol or the Good Friday Agreement?

I don't know what trap you are setting so, in better than Ian style, I'll swerve that be saying my point is clearly inferrable as to which agreement I meant.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't believe that for one moment. A breach by the UK of the NI agreement (NIA) was an entirely confected argument. Article 50 didn't stop us from leaving the EU - in other words it was notwithstanding the NIA.

Had we walked away from the EU, closing the border with Eire would have ben an act of the EU, who were not a party to the NIA except possibly by association with Eire. This onus is what frightened the hell out of Varadkar and we caved.

No, it would have been an act of Ireland as a signatory of the Treaty of Lisbon. There seems to be a misunderstanding here of what the European Union is. The EU can only act with the agreement of the member states. The whole being ruled from Brussels only happens with the consent of the member states and every law and regulation needs the agreement of usually both the Parliament and the nation heads of state.

The EU, having competence over things like customs and standards (again, with the agreement of the nation state of Ireland) paid due regard to Irelands position as a signator of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, hence the fudge of the Northern Ireland protocol agreed by all parties

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

No, it would have been an act of Ireland as a signatory of the Treaty of Lisbon. There seems to be a misunderstanding here of what the European Union is. The EU can only act with the agreement of the member states. The whole being ruled from Brussels only happens with the consent of the member states and every law and regulation needs the agreement of usually both the Parliament and the nation heads of state.

The EU, having competence over things like customs and standards (again, with the agreement of the nation state of Ireland) paid due regard to Irelands position as a signator of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, hence the fudge of the Northern Ireland protocol agreed by all parties

The EU would have insisted on a hard border due to the customs/single market but instead succeeded in passing the buck to us.
The EU would have forced Eire to apply a border had we walked away.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't know what trap you are setting so, in better than Ian style, I'll swerve that be saying my point is clearly inferrable as to which agreement I meant.

No, it isn’t - that is why I asked.

No trap - they are two separate things, and I’m not sure which you are referring to…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, it isn’t - that is why I asked.

No trap - they are two separate things, and I’m not sure which you are referring to…

Apologies. The GFA.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Apologies. The GFA.

Thank you for the clarification

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The EU would have insisted on a hard border due to the customs/single market but instead succeeded in passing the buck to us.
The EU would have forced Eire to apply a border had we walked away.

Ireland would have a choice of breaking one treaty or another. The EU courts could insist on Ireland closing the border or be suspended from the European Union but the power sharing authority of the Good Friday Agreement could insist on keeping the border open.

Luckily it didn’t come to it but Ireland had a stark choice - leaving the EU or risking the peace process in the North. I am not 100% convinced that peace in another country trumps EU membership. Any Irish politician suggesting leaving the EU wouldn’t be around that long

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Ireland would have a choice of breaking one treaty or another. The EU courts could insist on Ireland closing the border or be suspended from the European Union but the power sharing authority of the Good Friday Agreement could insist on keeping the border open.

Luckily it didn’t come to it but Ireland had a stark choice - leaving the EU or risking the peace process in the North. <SNIP>

I think we are now in broad agreement.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Ireland would have a choice of breaking one treaty or another. The EU courts could insist on Ireland closing the border or be suspended from the European Union but the power sharing authority of the Good Friday Agreement could insist on keeping the border open.

Luckily it didn’t come to it but Ireland had a stark choice - leaving the EU or risking the peace process in the North. I am not 100% convinced that peace in another country trumps EU membership. Any Irish politician suggesting leaving the EU wouldn’t be around that long

And putting another EU country in that bind would hardly lead to any sort of free trade deal being signed between the UK and EU. We would deservedly have been treated like a rogue state and paid the economic price.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't know what trap you are setting so, in better than Ian style, I'll swerve that be saying my point is clearly inferrable as to which agreement I meant.

Why are you making it so personal? The facts are the facts. You can disprove the points I have made and I welcome your attempts.

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:38 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"Not sure about that" is an under statement. We couldn't have walked away with no deal as it would have breached the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The deal we negotiated was a hard Brexit that did not represent the country's feeling. It's not just about the spectrum of views of the 52% it's about the 100%. Norway had a similar outcome so decided not to join the EU but went for the very close relationship instead. I'm not saying we should have copied Norway but finding something that was more representative of the desire of the UK population as a whole and not of the more extreme right wing of the Conservative Party would have been beneficial. As it is, we'll move that way over time but at a higher economic cost than being there in the first place.
https://www.norway.no/en/missions/eu...ical-overview/

Remember that the 'country" had no definitive feelings. There was a spectrum, ranging from ignorance to outright nationalist dogma, and everything in between.

The revisionists would have you believe there was a consensus for a hard Brexit but there was not. There was a consensus for nothing. "Leave the EU" was a smorgasbord of political options, a pick & mix if you will. What was definitive was the prediction of economic suicide which played out as predicted. Imposing economic sanctions on yourself is not a good option given the proximity of your major trading partner and the intricacies of global trade.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

<SNIP>

Remember that the 'country" had no definitive feelings. There was a spectrum, ranging from ignorance to outright nationalist dogma, and everything in between.

The revisionists would have you believe there was a consensus for a hard Brexit but there was not. There was a consensus for nothing. "Leave the EU" was a smorgasbord of political options, a pick & mix if you will. What was definitive was the prediction of economic suicide which played out as predicted. Imposing economic sanctions on yourself is not a good option given the proximity of your major trading partner and the intricacies of global trade.

There you have it. If only the EU had been a major trading partner and not a political institution heading towards integration and all our overarching laws being made in Brussels. You don't seem to understand that.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There you have it. If only the EU had been a major trading partner and not a political institution heading towards integration and all our overarching laws being made in Brussels. You don't seem to understand that.

This may be the trajectory in your world view but in the real world that was never going to happen.