One final question from me. The DUP's strength comes from the current Parliamentary arithmetic. Voting down the Budget possibly resulting in a Corbyn government will remove their leverage.
So isn't it in their interests to get some sort of deal now with Barnier rather than go for broke and end up with no leverage at all?
Well yes, in the short term, but these guys remember their history back to 12 July 1690. It's inconceivable to me that they will blink first (I went to school in Bangor NI.) https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/uk/orangemen-day
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
Because we must. And they know it.
Because our negotiators are weak.
Our negotiators are weak because Leave promised 'no downside, only considerable upside'. If Leave had promised a diamond hard Brexit and still won the referendum then our negotiators would be invincible.
I think @Topping's view is that it is the realities of Irish history which make an Irish border untenable. Not the basis on which the referendum was won.
This isn't even a remotely difficult choice, Brussels can't vote down the Gov'ts budget.
But no deal means in all likelihood the fall of the government.
Not by November it doesn't. Also how exactly does this come about - Are Soubry, Morgan, Grieve and Clarke going to vote against confidence in their own Government ?
I think we have the possibility of a zombie government, protected by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, but without the support of the House to get any of its meaningful business through.
Cameron's baleful legacy providing another gift to the nation.
Edit: Where by "meaningful" I mean "Brexit", since it eclipses everything at present.
One final question from me. The DUP's strength comes from the current Parliamentary arithmetic. Voting down the Budget possibly resulting in a Corbyn government will remove their leverage.
So isn't it in their interests to get some sort of deal now with Barnier rather than go for broke and end up with no leverage at all?
I don’t think that’s a question so much as a statement of fact. But nose/face.
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The GFA essentially says that people in Northern Ireland have a Schroedinger nationality. They can pretend to be Irish, and not British, if they want to. A hard border would abrogate that.
Anyway, I thought this was irrelevant since the EU has now agreed to pretend that the border didn't exist?
Or has that been contradicted in the last couple of hours?
This isn't even a remotely difficult choice, Brussels can't vote down the Gov'ts budget.
But no deal means in all likelihood the fall of the government.
Not by November it doesn't. Also how exactly does this come about - Are Soubry, Morgan, Grieve and Clarke going to vote against confidence in their own Government ?
I think we have the possibility of a zombie government, protected by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, but without the support of the House to get any of its meaningful business through.
Cameron's baleful legacy providing another gift to the nation.
Edit: Where by "meaningful" I mean "Brexit", since it eclipses everything at present.
Smart move by the DUP to threaten to vote down the budget - May is much more vulnerable on that than on Brexit as there is no chance of any Labour MPs riding to her rescue on a budget motion.
I guess either they believe that the EU will blink if they force May to reject the backstop (seems unlikely) or they have got cold feet about the whole idea of Brexit as they realise it is bringing a united Ireland closer and so they want to kibosh the whole thing whilst at the same time appearing to act in a way in which their base would support.
This isn't even a remotely difficult choice, Brussels can't vote down the Gov'ts budget.
But no deal means in all likelihood the fall of the government.
Not by November it doesn't. Also how exactly does this come about - Are Soubry, Morgan, Grieve and Clarke going to vote against confidence in their own Government ?
I think we have the possibility of a zombie government, protected by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, but without the support of the House to get any of its meaningful business through.
Cameron's baleful legacy providing another gift to the nation.
Edit: Where by "meaningful" I mean "Brexit", since it eclipses everything at present.
I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Most Goverment actions, however well intentioned, rarely add to the sum of human contentment. Let MPs shout at each other in the belief that what they say matters. And the rest of us can get on with our lives.
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
OK - one more question. What is the problem with no. 2) from the EU's perspective? Or indeed the UK's? (For the UK is it just the no other trade deals or is there some other objection?)
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
Because we must. And they know it.
Because our negotiators are weak.
Our negotiators are weak because Leave promised 'no downside, only considerable upside'. If Leave had promised a diamond hard Brexit and still won the referendum then our negotiators would be invincible.
Quite. A No Deal Brexit is easy to achieve, just not worth achieving.
Our negotiators are weak because Leave promised 'no downside, only considerable upside'. If Leave had promised a diamond hard Brexit and still won the referendum then our negotiators would be invincible.
Leave promised out of single market and customs union, end of free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and full control of our laws. Remain said that would have considerable downside and lead to a recession and emergency budget. So where from that is a Brexit in name only?
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
OK - one more question. What is the problem with no. 2) from the EU's perspective? Or indeed the UK's? (For the UK is it just the no other trade deals or is there some other objection?)
Ask the ERG!! Plus the EU thinks it's cherrypicking. Or did (as it only covers goods, not services).
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
They can make the claim but they will lose.
So long as the appropriate tariffs and regulatory controls are imposed then there are no rules requiring physical checks at the border
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15% 2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45% 3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35% 4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3% 5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
I don't think 3 is sellable politically
1 would be great, but I don't think possible without a concession on FoM so won't happen (and that is so irritating because an automatic work permit system would work fine - it's EU theoreticians getting hung up about theology)
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
That has to be one of the most insulting things done for a long while. And, unless I am much mistaken, due to a recent ruling by the SCOTUS.
You are mistaken. It was a decision by the appeals court which the Suireme Court refused to revisit
Asking voters to provide a residential address is not unreasonable. If native Americans don’t have “traditional residential addresses” they can come up with a way to create that.
Not if you traditionally have a large portion of your population of a specific demographic who do not have a "traditional" (who's tradition?) residential address.
It's a naked, tagrgetted, attempt at disenfranchisement.
Proof of address is not an unreasonable ask. Have the activists come up with an alternative proposal?
The measure was brought in to fight non existent in-person voter fraud.
It behoves the law writers to show that there is a purpose to the law given that they knew it was going to disenfranchise thousands of their citizens.
That’s why you have a debate in the legislature. Presumably they were convinced
Oh well, that definetly stops it being a targeted attempt at disenfranchisement then.
Comments
If there were to be a deal it's always going to be preceded by suspense, drama, and a drum roll, just to prove how tough it all was.
https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/uk/orangemen-day
And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:
1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15%
2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45%
3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35%
4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3%
5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cannabis/article-canadian-cannabis-legalization-reading-guide/
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf
Eric Berger drilling down the detail in it on twitter :
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace
Anyway, I thought this was irrelevant since the EU has now agreed to pretend that the border didn't exist?
Or has that been contradicted in the last couple of hours?
I guess either they believe that the EU will blink if they force May to reject the backstop (seems unlikely) or they have got cold feet about the whole idea of Brexit as they realise it is bringing a united Ireland closer and so they want to kibosh the whole thing whilst at the same time appearing to act in a way in which their base would support.
OK - one more question. What is the problem with no. 2) from the EU's perspective? Or indeed the UK's? (For the UK is it just the no other trade deals or is there some other objection?)
A No Deal Brexit is easy to achieve, just not worth achieving.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1050041273070051329
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1050044340607815680
And presumably at Holyhead too?
So long as the appropriate tariffs and regulatory controls are imposed then there are no rules requiring physical checks at the border
1 would be great, but I don't think possible without a concession on FoM so won't happen (and that is so irritating because an automatic work permit system would work fine - it's EU theoreticians getting hung up about theology)
2 becomes the default option