politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Northern Ireland border has been such a difficult issu
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Northern Ireland border has been such a difficult issue
I’ve just come across an article by John McTernan, Tony Blair’s former director of political operations, which explains very clearly why the Northern Ireland border is such an issue in the Brexit negotiations.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I can recall lots of talk about Gibraltar, but none about NI. I think one poster claims to have brought it up. Any other takers?
"Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
It is my best one ever.
I'll also be disappointed if it doesn't make John Rentoul's QTWTAIN list.
There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Personally I would not be upset to see the unification of Ireland (quite why this attitude upsets remainers, I don't know), but we voted as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the EU. And there are some people who think we ought not to be able to do that without conditions imposed by an external body.
(Sorry TSE, couldn't resist)
I suspect the Speaker will call them in ascending order of probability of passing, having consulted Party Leaders or whips. Otherwise it could get messy.
Could be:
1. Substitute Canada+ Ayes 100 Noes 540 [NI problem]
2. Substitute Norway+ Ayes 200 Noes 440 [Not Brexit]
3. Substitute Labour plan Ayes 220 Noes 420 [Labour support only]
4. Support bill subject to referendum no Deal versus Deal Ayes 250 Noes 390 [risks no deal]
5. Support bill subject to 3 way referendum Ayes 300 Noes 340 [too complex and risky]
6. Support bill subject to referendum Deal versus Remain Ayes 321 Noes 319 [or Ayes 319 Noes 321 and her deal is passed without amendment]
4-6 would also include request to EU to extend A50 to allow referendum.
One wonders whether or not either John Major or Tony Blair fully appreciated what it was they were signing up to?
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
Plus, of course, the revocation has to be in writing... and who decides whether it's properly in writing? The evil ECJ again - of course! And what if we don't address it to the European Council correctly?... Rejected again!
That ECJ ruling that we could unilaterally revoke A50 was just a tease to build our hopes up wasn't it?
It does rather presuppose the judges can read, and the evidence for this is, hum, shall we say, limited?
The bar is quite low tbf.
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d
To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.
NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.
Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.
Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
'
'That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.'
With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.
Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.
The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.
The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.
Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.
I'll file your explanation under "Black is White" next to "2 + 2 = 5".
Why bother with facts when you can fantasise eh?
And they wonder why Unionists object?
Nevertheless this is the second time within 24 hours that you have played 'fast and loose' with facts. Yesreday you were spouting gibberish re-A level grades prior to 1990.
I mean, even this inept excuse for a goverment is not going to say "We'd like to revoke A50, possibly." Or "We wish to revoke A50 on condition that you increase our rebate". But if it did, then there could be no argument - the revocation on either of those terms would not be "unequivocal and unconditional" - no one could have any complaint about that.
More likely though is that they simply say "We revoke A50". No court, not even the evil ECJ, could say that that is equivocal or conditional.
On the other hand, there's an argument to be made morally for the UK to have a right of withdrawal from the EU that doesn't compromise its own integrity, regardless of the need to unilaterally amend or withdraw from certain terms of the GFA. After all, the threat of the return to violence is always brought up under such circumstances, and objecting to a policy on the grounds that "we can't do it because otherwise it will make the terrorists sad" can always be viewed as questionable. Besides which, as in every other case, ancient principles of legal absolutism apply: the law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. If Parliament decides it wants to reinstate any kind of border with Ireland then it is entirely within its rights to do so (I say this purely as a statement of fact, and without advancing an opinion as to the rectitude or otherwise of such action.)
FWIW, if the country worked as I would like then we'd be a federation, one of the areas in which the states would only be able to act with unanimity would be in the signature or repeal of international agreements, and consequently Brexit would probably never have been contemplated, and even if it was the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments at least would've killed it off at birth. But never mind hypotheticals: we are where we are.
If you consider you know more about qualifications in the 60s than say, Eric Hobsbawm, carry on telling yourself that. It will make no difference to the facts, but it may make you feel better (out of curiosity, did you fail your A-levels given how strongly you feel about this)?
As for playing fast and loose with facts, being accused of that by you is a bit like being accused by Amanda Spielman of being utterly incompetent.
A sort of Remain with agreed divergence.
Your post is a very good one indeed.
But I still think they are being very foolhardy and provocative. The reason the GFA survived is becuase it was seen as a fair settlement. Imposing one that one side, however wrongly, considers unequal or inimical is reckless.
I don't think it helps either that Selmayr, who is rumoured to be behind this process, saw East and West Germany successfully reunited and has no understanding of how very different matters are in Ireland.
I would ,however, expect that someone who has spent so much of his time in Academia to be au fait with data readily available on the internet which reveals that until the late 1980s 30 % of A Level entrants failed to achieve a grade E pass - ie 30% were awarded an O level pass or failed outright. Today a mere 2.5% fail to gain at least an E grade.
The revocation process would not go near the ECJ unless someone challenged the validity of any A50 revocation. Unless the government was stupid enough to include some clear equivocation or condition or had been seen not to have "taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements" there would be no grounds.
As an aside, if we did revoke A50 we could be treated to the delicious irony of Rees-Mogg and co going to the ECJ to ask them to overturn a legitimate action of the UK Parliament!
However Mr T has suggested (I think) a better alternative - a progressive divergence. We just legislate and agree where we want to diverge. I've not seen that suggested before, but I do think it's a good path.
Population of Wyoming = 0.6m
Just as you failed to link to the data supporting your claim a merged Preseli and Ceredigion would be a Labour gain rather than a Conservative hold.
Or claiming you knew more about Winston Churchill's political allegiance in 1924 than he did.
And again, you haven't addressed Theresa May and your wish for ill on her. Indeed, you seem to be avoiding the subject. So far as I am aware, you have never apologised for that even when a huge number of posters including Labour posters criticised you for it.
As for your claims on constituency results, I have no clue what you're talking about.
You can be interesting, and you are clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable but more often you spend your time just nitpicking (often wrongly) and being, well, a bit odd.
I have to go but I hope that gives you food for thought.
Have a good evening.
Whilst the UK was more powerful than Ireland this was not a problem, as the bodies involved were small and uncontroversial. But now that the EU is on Ireland's side and the power balance has shifted, this arrangement is a problem.
If you genuinely want to prevent any annexation, then tear up the GFA and build a physical border and enforce it. But as long as the GFA exists and the blurring of sovereignty it implies, then you will have this problem.
.
I gave you the detailed results of various constituencies in 2017 - all of which flatly contradicted your assertions which included suggestions that Cabinet Ministers were less likely to suffer major adverse swings. I pointed out that Ben Gummer lost his seat , Justine Greening came close to losing Putney and Amber Rudd barely held on in Hastings & Rye. You appeared totally unaware of the narrow squeaks of Stephen Crabb in Preseli Pembrokeshire and the Tory in Telford.
As for being odd , perhaps you need to spend a bit more time in front of the mirror rather than depressing the pedals of your organ.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/421918-kamala-harris-top-2020-choice-in-poll-of-women-of-color
Harris dominates, but again good figures for O’Rourke and Biden.
No-one wants to risk that.
The UK? No ... Belgium:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/18/belgian-pm-charles-michel-resigns-no-confidence-motion
Who would have guessed the Belgian government would break before ours did?
(If you want to get the population ratios closer to England, Scotland, Wales and NI, swap New Mexico in for Washington.)
The problem is that the 'hard' Brexiters know that such a considered process cannot be guaranteed to continue toward their favoured end destination; any future government could put it on hold or into reverse, and public opinion might easily switch if progressive separation from the EU hampers the economy or delivers other unwelcome consequences. Thus they insist we bounce into cold turkey Brexit regardless of the damage it will do, hoping that whatever we manage to salvage from their wreckage wont take us back into the EU. Rarely has any group of politicians exhibited such reckless disregard for the people they claim to represent.
Irish reunificiation would also attract (I'm guessing) a lot of funding from both the EU and the US.
You miss the point though. And that is 'Philip_Thompson's idea'.
It's good. Might not be perfect, but it's good.
ROI population 4.9m, GDP per capita 2018 est = $80,000
NI population 1.9m, GVA per capita (2016 est) = $25,000
If for simplicity we treat GVA and GDP as equivalents (I know, I know):
All Ireland population 6.8m, GDP per capita = circa $65,000.
Great for NI; not really unbearable for ROI.
In short, this would require the four constituent members to share a head of state, armed forces, security services, an immigration and border policy, control of airspace, a common currency and a common Government to administer these functions. There would also need to be some minimum common standards to allow a single market to operate, a supreme court as now, and it is possible (as per the infamous vow from the Scottish referendum campaign) that the states might wish to share a common system for the provision of state pensions.
Powers of taxation would need to be split between Westminster and the states, to give the latter a fully autonomous income under their own control, rather than funding by bloc grant which has been the cause of such trouble in the existing, botched devolution settlement. Borrowing powers would also be divided, but the ability of the states to borrow would have to be limited to reduce the risk of some states borrowing recklessly and the others than having to bail them out, as per the Eurozone crisis. A system of fiscal transfers (replacing Barnett) would be needed to help smooth out excessive disparities in wealth and income, although this would also necessarily need to be limited as a guard against policy-driven economic decline in one part of the country leading to its neighbours being bled white to rescue it.
Most other functions - including anything where federal level co-operation was not deemed essential - would be left to the states. A constitution agreed by all four parties would demarcate the limits of the rights and responsibilities of all concerned, and would specify where the federal Government could act entirely under its own initiative and where it would have to consult the states: I'd consider the power to deploy armed force - where decisive action might very well need to be taken quickly - to be a matter for central Government, but the signature or repeal of international agreements to be something that could be sent to the states for ratification (and, consequently, subject to potential veto.)
But anyway, that's enough theorising for now.
Did someone suggest next Tuesday?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill
(snipped for brevity)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/18/forget-government-vote-no-confidence-opposition/
Jezbollah the genius.