andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2019-05-06 08:52 am
andrewducker) wrote2019-05-06 08:52 am
Where are we on Brexit?
It's been a while since we had one of these, and I wanted to get my thoughts in order.
The local elections last week _should_ have sent a solid message. But, of course, Corbyn and May are saying that the message it sent was "More Brexit Please". However, they've still not got any chance of getting a deal over the line.
Labour won't accept a Brexit deal with the Conservatives without a customs deal of some kind*. And Theresa May agreeing to that would cause at least 100 of her MPs to vote against it.
Meanwhile, two thirds of Labour MPs are saying they won't vote for any Brexit deal which doesn't have a second referendum attached to it.
Plus, of course, the EU have said that all they will edit at this point is the political declaration, the actual withdrawal agreement is sealed.
And if the government decides "The hell with this" and call a general election we end up in a situation like this:
Conservatives: 279
Labour: 268
Liberal Democrats: 29
SNP: 51 (I think, looking at the other numbers)
Which means you'd need Lab+Lib+SNP for a solid majority**. Coalition of Chaos indeed!
*As far as anyone can tell the Labour leadership are still thinking that they can have a customs deal that gives them lots of access to things, but without having to give anything up. As they aren't about to be able to directly negotiate, we're not likely to see their unicorns run into a brick wall.
** Although Labour could aim for a minority government and just dare others to vote against them. Or pick just one of the other two parties to have a formal agreement with.
The local elections last week _should_ have sent a solid message. But, of course, Corbyn and May are saying that the message it sent was "More Brexit Please". However, they've still not got any chance of getting a deal over the line.
Labour won't accept a Brexit deal with the Conservatives without a customs deal of some kind*. And Theresa May agreeing to that would cause at least 100 of her MPs to vote against it.
Meanwhile, two thirds of Labour MPs are saying they won't vote for any Brexit deal which doesn't have a second referendum attached to it.
Plus, of course, the EU have said that all they will edit at this point is the political declaration, the actual withdrawal agreement is sealed.
And if the government decides "The hell with this" and call a general election we end up in a situation like this:
Conservatives: 279
Labour: 268
Liberal Democrats: 29
SNP: 51 (I think, looking at the other numbers)
Which means you'd need Lab+Lib+SNP for a solid majority**. Coalition of Chaos indeed!
*As far as anyone can tell the Labour leadership are still thinking that they can have a customs deal that gives them lots of access to things, but without having to give anything up. As they aren't about to be able to directly negotiate, we're not likely to see their unicorns run into a brick wall.
** Although Labour could aim for a minority government and just dare others to vote against them. Or pick just one of the other two parties to have a formal agreement with.
no subject
The question is how do you stop The Troubles kicking off again.
no subject
The Good Friday Agreement is what happens when the British and Irish no longer want to pay for the security operation to keep para-military activity below a very low level (but not drug trafficking or fuel smuggling).
It might be the case that stopping there being a single market (including the free movement of people) that includes both the Republic of Ireland and Nothern Ireland so irritates the people of Northern Ireland that sufficient of them are motivated to re-start a campaign of violence but perhaps not.
Breaking the treaty obligations of the Good Friday Agreement in an act of bad faith might motivate a resumption of the violent campaign.
I've yet to see it clearly established that the actual bi-lateral treaty obligations between the UK and the Republic of Ireland require, as a point of law, both areas to be in the Single Market and therefore subject to the Free Movement of People under the Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC.
I completely agree that both the Republic and NI being in the Single Market makes it very easy to operate the Common Travel Area and the other bi-lateral obligations under the GFA. I completely agree that people in NI and those in Eire who are physically or commercially near the Eire / NI border will be mightily inconvenienced if Eire and NI aren't in the Single Market and will be aggrieved. I completely agree that people generally assume that the GFA guarantees the Free Movement of People including Schengen-like non-controls between Eire and NI rather than that people in the island of Ireland can move around without asking for permission first and can take out citizenship of either or both the Republic of Ireland and the UK but I haven't see that writen down anywhere.
Maybe the perception of the border is enough to motivate a return to violence. I'd be loath to find out whether it is or not. That's a bloodly stupid idea. The whole thing is a bloody stupid idea. Brexit and the Troubles both. But I'm not sure that claiming that the UK broke its GFA treaty obligations is a persuasive battle-cry if we actually didn't.
And so, what I'm interested in is what happens if there is a No Deal Brexit, what actual obligations do the UK and the Republic have to each other and to their citizens? What survives us not being in the same Single Market with each other? Do we have a way of managing those rights which doesn't massively mess with the lives of people along the border?
And it seems to me that the question of non-compliant goods is much harder to manage without a border than the question of people who will need to provide some documentation before they can get a job, buy a house, go to the doctor and so on. Certainly from our end, harder to manage at the EU end but that is one reason why Ireland is not in the Schengen area.