Support NeoGAF

[Pancake Mix]

EU doesn't need to encourage Scotland, the UK is doing it themselves just fine. Besides, all I'm saying that if Scotland does secede, it's got a nigh guaranteed place in the EU.

Virtually no one is doing anything of that nature intentionally, it was a UK-wide vote and Scotland is not a place where only one viewpoint exists. The Old Firm rivalry is testament to that.

Scotland does not have a "nigh guaranteed place" in the EU when major EU countries worry about movements in places like Wallonia and Catalonia. Nobody in power wants the further balkanisation of Europe. They would not be in a rush.

There are real solutions to the unfortunate business of Brexit that can be thought out that don't involve running around like headless chickens.

 

[Rodelero]

The UK voted as a bloc, and a large minority of Scots agreed, but are getting ignored while the independence rhetoric is being turned up again despite a recent Scotland-only mandate to remain in the UK by a difference of over 10 percentage points, in a vote where the SNP got everything they wanted, even a youth vote of 16 and 17-year olds, who instead voted against independence. Almost every council area said no and there's been zero evidence that the Brexit vote moved the dial. Rather, it's been an opportunity for hardline nationalists like Salmond to bark within their bubble and nothing more.

I think it's fairly dangerous, especially after the year we've had, to assume that Scotland won't decide on independence if they are asked in a year or two. The two referendum results imply that Scotland feels more strongly about staying in the EU than they do staying in the UK. The polling right now suggests Scotland would stay in the UK; the polling a year before the Brexit referendum suggested strongly that the UK would stay in the EU.

You can say that leaving the UK would be self-harm for Scotland, but that argument failed to work against Brexit and it may well fail again. The UK has decided to leave the EU because British people were sick of the EU making its laws. That's when most people in the UK couldn't name a single significant problematic law that the EU forced upon us. Don't be amazed if Scotland decides it no longer wants its future dictated by an increasingly right wing Westminster that they essentially have no say in. There is a point at which independence becomes attractive even if it isn't economically sensible, and it is the moment when most people in that country feel the United Kingdom's trajectory, politically, and economically, isn't one they want to follow. Brexit; Theresa May's wannabe Thatcherism; The utter hopelessness of Corbyn. It's an insult to the Scottish voters who voted to remain in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

 

[nekkid]

So Mandleson's comments about discussing immigration with Germany may be something he raised prior to the referendum (plus other interesting tidbits):

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...things-you-didnt-know-about-the-eu-referendum

 

[kmag]

The UK voted as a bloc, and a large minority of Scots agreed, but are getting ignored while the independence rhetoric is being turned up again despite a recent Scotland-only mandate to remain in the UK by a difference of over 10 percentage points, in a vote where the SNP got everything they wanted, even a youth vote of 16 and 17-year olds, who instead voted against independence. Almost every council area said no and there's been zero evidence that the Brexit vote moved the dial. Rather, it's been an opportunity for hardline nationalists like Salmond to bark within their bubble and nothing more.

Trying to solve economic self-harm (Brexit) with even more economic self-harm is absurd.

If anything, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be the only thing preventing a hard Brexit.

Complaining about the minority of Scottish EU leavers being ignored while ignoring the far larger minority of Scottish independence voters. There's a word for that.

 

[Tacitus_]

Scotland does not have a "nigh guaranteed place" in the EU when major EU countries worry about movements in places like Wallonia and Catalonia. Nobody in power wants the further balkanisation of Europe. They would not be in a rush.

For the love of... it would be different from Catalonia as Spain doesn't want a seceding part from an EU country to have automatic admission to EU. With the UK leaving the EU, that complaint goes as well.

 

[Funky Papa]

For the love of... it would be different from Catalonia as Spain doesn't want a seceding part from an EU country to have automatic admission to EU. With the UK leaving the EU, that complaint goes as well.

That may be doubtful, as Catalonian separatists would surely use Scotland as a false equivalency for their own purposes and God knows the PP is hell bent on blocking them at every turn. There's a very real chance of a PP-governed Spain blocking Scotlands' admission just to make a point, even if circumstances are different. Playground-level politics are common here. As of now, Spain should not be considered friendly towards Scotland's aspirations.

Other parties may be friendlier to that notion, however.

 

[nekkid]

That may be doubtful, as Catalonian separatists would surely use Scotland as a false equivalency for their own purposes and God knows the PP is hell bent on blocking them at every turn. There's a very real chance of a PP-governed Spain blocking Scotlands' admission just to make a point, even if circumstances are different. Playground-level politics are common here. As of now, Spain should not be considered friendly towards Scotland's aspirations.

Other parties may be friendlier to that notion, however.

Do other nations really care? As in, I can see why some would be opposed to it, but I can't see why any would be particularly keen.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

That may be doubtful, as Catalonian separatists would surely use Scotland as a false equivalency for their own purposes and God knows the PP is hell bent on blocking them at every turn. There's a very real chance of a PP-governed Spain blocking Scotlands' admission just to make a point, even if circumstances are different. Playground-level politics are common here. As of now, Spain should not be considered friendly towards Scotland's aspirations.

Other parties may be friendlier to that notion, however.

This may be slightly moot, given Rajoy's unpopularity with large swathes of the population. At this point I doubt his party would be in power in 2022, which is probably the most optimistic timeline for another vote. Arguably he only 'won' because of the of the socialist party(PSOE) fighting against its leader (sound familiar?).

 

[Funky Papa]

Do other nations really care? As in, I can see why some would be opposed to it, but I can't see why any would be particularly keen.

It doesn't matter as you only need one veto to block it.

This may be slightly moot, given Rajoy's unpopularity with large swathes of the population. At this point I doubt his party would be in power in 2022, which is probably the most optimistic timeline for another vote. Arguably he only 'won' because of the of the socialist party(PSOE) fighting against its leader (sound familiar?).

I wouldn't be so sure. The PSOE is going to be a dumpster fire for years after its inner coup and Podemos has failed to capitalise that. As of now, the PP's base is only barely smaller than the sum of PSOE and Podemos. If the economy improves, I can see them trouncing the PSOE while Podemos turns into IU v2.0 (read: another leftist joke).

Spain is going to remain largely blue until the older generation dies. It doesn't matter if even the PP voters dislike Rajoy; they'll still vote for him with their last breath. Which incidentally means more Gibraltar dickery just for the fun of it.

 

[nekkid]

It doesn't matter as you only need one veto to block it.

Well it kinda matters, because those for it have the potential to influence those that might veto it. So if Spain wanted the veto, are there any other members that are likely to have a word with Spain? Probably not.

 

[Mr. Sam]

They might have a word but it would be the reddest of red lines for Spain.

 

[*Splinter]

By blocking Scotland's entry, Spain would be admitting that the situation is similar to their own, and Scotland would inevitably join the EU anyway just taking a bit longer.

Instead Spain should support Scotland joining the EU, so that they could later argue that Catalonia's situation is totally different and that people shouldn't be encouraged by Scotland's situation.

I mean:

That may be doubtful, as Catalonian separatists would surely use Scotland as a false equivalency for their own purposes

Blocking Scotland would reinforce this false equivalency, and I doubt the block would last for very long.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Complaining about the minority of Scottish EU leavers being ignored while ignoring the far larger minority of Scottish independence voters. There's a word for that.

That's misleading, over 2 million voted to remain in the UK, there was a huge turnout in favour of this.

1.7 million voted to remain in the EU and to 1.6 to leave the UK between the two referendums. There was a smaller turnout for the European Union membership referendum, and it was a UK-wide vote.

One Scottish council area (Moray) was 49.9 percent leave and was 122 votes away from appearing as leave on maps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#Most_evenly_divided_areas

It was a borough of London (Lambeth) that had the strongest remain vote in the entire UK. This result was not surprising given the low, wealthy population and proximity of financial institutions. Greater London's remain proportion was also quite similar to Scotland's.

It was a UK-wide vote, and it wasn't just England that (unwisely and unfortunately) voted leave. Wales also has a Celtic culture and the strongest minority indigenous language use in the entire UK. So strong that the only Welsh prime minister, David Llyod George, was also the only prime minister whose first language was other than English. Wales also received more developmental funding from the EU than the rest of the UK. People who voted for Brexit were quite often Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru, and Labour voters as much as they were Tory or...UKIP. Let's not pretend like the SNP was always pro-EU either, they adapted for support.

It wasn't just "little Englanders."

For the love of... it would be different from Catalonia as Spain doesn't want a seceding part from an EU country to have automatic admission to EU. With the UK leaving the EU, that complaint goes as well.

You're ignoring geopolitical factors. As Funky Papa said, Catalonian separatists would use a Scotland example, even if it's not truly equivalent.

Speaking of Spain, the PP government has reaffirmed their commitment to no special deal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/22/spain-rejects-nicola-sturgeon-brexit-plan-scotland-seemingly/

This would not go away with independence. It would only get stronger.

Well it kinda matters, because those for it have the potential to influence those that might veto it. So if Spain wanted the veto, are there any other members that are likely to have a word with Spain? Probably not.

I bet Belgium might quietly support a Spanish veto or do it themselves, especially if Wallonian separatism flairs up. I have no evidence to support that assertion, however.

What is a lot more practical is to try to do a soft Brexit. Every major party (minus Lib Dems) has made it clear that they're also willing to compromise on actual EU membership, SNP included.

Leaving the Customs Union would mean becoming an independent member of the WTO....subject to veto by Argentina and Spain. Quite the risk. It would also mean customs checks with the Republic of Ireland on the Irish border...

By blocking Scotland's entry, Spain would be admitting that the situation is similar to their own, and Scotland would inevitably join the EU anyway just taking a bit longer.

Instead Spain should support Scotland joining the EU, so that they could later argue that Catalonia's situation is totally different and that people shouldn't be encouraged by Scotland's situation.

I mean:

Blocking Scotland would reinforce this false equivalency, and I doubt the block would last for very long.

No. Why would Spain encourage a separatist movement in Europe? Catalonian separatists would view the Spanish threat as hollow, and it's not just the Catalonian region the Spanish government is concerned about in the long-term either.

 

[Rodelero]

It was a UK-wide vote, and it wasn't just England that (unwisely and unfortunately) voted leave. Wales also has a Celtic culture and the strongest minority indigenous language use in the entire UK. So strong that the only Welsh prime minister, David Llyod George, was also the only prime minister whose first language was other than English. Wales also received more developmental funding from the EU than the rest of the UK. People who voted for Brexit were quite often Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru, and Labour voters as much as they were Tory or...UKIP. Let's not pretend like the SNP was always pro-EU either, they adapted for support.

It wasn't just "little Englanders."

They may have been "quite" often Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru, and Labour voters, but it is surely false to say "as much as they were Tory or... UKIP". According to https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/, the degree to which Labour voters backed Remain was stronger than the degree to which Tory voters backed Leave.

A great number of Labour voters did vote to Leave, far more than anyone expected, but they are still outnumbered 2:1 by the Labour voters who voted to Remain. This is one of the main reasons that Labour's current pro-Brexit stance is working so badly. They are backing Brexit because so many of the seats they hold and want to win backed Brexit - their actual voting base backed Remain by a massive margin.

The frank reality is that, if our political system becomes rewritten along Brexit lines, we're headed for endless Conservative governments. People need to remember about all the other things that matter, before its too late.

 

[Pancake Mix]

They may have been "quite" often Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru, and Labour voters, but it is surely false to say "as much as they were Tory or... UKIP". According to https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/, the degree to which Labour voters backed Remain was stronger than the degree to which Tory voters backed Leave.

A great number of Labour voters did vote to Leave, far more than anyone expected, but they are still outnumbered 2:1 by the Labour voters who voted to Remain. This is one of the main reasons that Labour's current pro-Brexit stance is working so badly. They are backing Brexit because so many of the seats they hold and want to win backed Brexit - their actual voting base backed Remain by a massive margin.

The frank reality is that, if our political system becomes rewritten along Brexit lines, we're headed for endless Conservative governments. People need to remember about all the other things that matter, before its too late.

Sorry, I meant to say there were certainly a large number of Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Labour, UUP, etc. voters who backed leave in total, not that they were the larger number.

I agree wholeheartedly that people need some perspective.

 

[Joni]

Farage thinks he still has a say about europe. Complained about Schengen because of the Berlin attacker being shot in Milan. I suggest Europe makes Schengen a prerequisite for any deal with Britain

I bet Belgium might quietly support a Spanish veto or do it themselves, especially if Wallonian separatism flairs up. I have no evidence to support that assertion, however.

It is clear you have no evidence. There is no serious Wallonian separatism. In Belgium it is the majority group that wants to split the country so they have no reason to take a stance against Scotland. A lot of people in Belgium, mainly those in the biggest party, would love to see Scotland enter as this takes away any power of the Europe argument.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Farage thinks he still has a say about europe. Complained about Schengen because of the Berlin attacker being shot in Milan. I suggest Europe makes Schengen a prerequisite for any deal with Britain


It is clear you have no evidence. There is no serious Wallonian separatism. In Belgium it is the majority group that wants to split the country so they have no reason to take a stance against Scotland.

The Common Travel Area is much preferable. I suggest you don't wish active self-harm on your country.

You have no idea what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Flemish_Alliance
This is just the largest separatist party. They have lots of support.

 

[Joni]

The Common Travel Area is much preferable. I suggest you don't wish active self-harm on your country.

You have no idea what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Flemish_Alliance
This is just the largest separatist party. They have lots of support.

Yeah. They are also Flemish, not Wallonian. Unless you think the SNP is a good example of English separatism. And yeah, the NVA has a lot of support so it would be dumb of them to block Scotland as this would counter their own plans.

As for the common travel area, forcing Schengen on Britain would be a good way to welcome Ireland in the club. We need to blow up British exceptionalism. If they want to trade with our single market, they should be forced into every element.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Yeah. They are also Flemish, not Wallonian. Unless you think the SNP is a good example of English separatism. And yeah, the NVA has a lot of support so it would be dumb of them to block Scotland as this would counter their own plans.

As for the common travel area, forcing Schengen on Britain would be a good way to welcome Ireland in the club. We need to blow up British exceptionalism. If they want to trade with our single market, they should be forced into every element.

No, it's irrelevant whether they're Flemish or Wallonian, it would have the same effect. Flemish nationalism is just more organised. The effect would be the same.

No. I don't think Ireland has ever demanded nor cares whether the UK joins Schengen, as the CTA suits them just fine. You're the one trying to "welcome Ireland in the club", which sounds quite paternalistic.

 

[KingSnake]

No, it's irrelevant whether they're Flemish or Wallonian, it would have the same effect. Flemish nationalism is just more organised. The effect would be the same.

The amount of spin applied just to avoid admitting that you confused things and made some wrong statements is so great that almost overpasses your possessiveness about Scotland.

 

[Pancake Mix]

The amount of spin applied just to avoid admitting that you confused things and made some wrong statements is so great that almost overpasses your possessiveness about Scotland.

Considering how many outright false statements I have responded to here I think I can be forgiven for momentarily confusing Flemish separatism with Wallonian separatism. Regardless, it is a powerful force and would have the same effect. Belgium will be watching events in Spain closely.

I am not possessive about Scotland. There is a very recent and clear democratic mandate from the Scottish people for the current status of Scotland.

Furthermore, Scotland has been in the EU just as long as the rUK, and yet, trade with the rUK economy is worth far more to Scotland to this day than the EU according to the Scottish government's own figures.
Another referendum would result in further flight of capital http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2754496/Investors-pull-massive-16-6bn-UK-fear-Scotland-exit-biggest-flight-capital-Lehman-crisis.html.

Those are among the many reasons why a response to Brexit that leads to even more economic self-harm seems absurd, because it is.

 

[Joni]

No, it's irrelevant whether they're Flemish or Wallonian, it would have the same effect. Flemish nationalism is just more organised. The effect would be the same.

Considering how many outright false statements I have responded to here I think I can be forgiven for momentarily confusing Flemish separatism with Wallonian separatism. Regardless, it is a powerful force and would have the same effect. Belgium will be watching events in Spain closely.

It is completely counter to your point. You assume Belgium would back Spain to avoid a Flemish independence. But the sepatarist party is actually the biggest ruling party in Belgium... They would need to approve the Belgian block stance, which would run counter to their program. So yes, you are spouting bullshit. You are missing the point so far that it would be more realistic to state that Farage likes the EU. Just admit that you are wrong, I know more about Flemish independence than you, it is fine to admit that, as I'm actually Flemish and you are not so it is completely normal. But please don't spout bullshit about how it is the same, as that misses the entire power balance aspect. Both Britain and Spain involve smaller parts breaking away, Belgium involves the actual majority part of the country trying to break away. It is impossible to have a Belgian government without some Flemish people, and only once has there been a majority without a Flemish majority in it.

No. I don't think Ireland has ever demanded nor cares whether the UK joins Schengen, as the CTA suits them just fine. You're the one trying to "welcome Ireland in the club", which sounds quite paternalistic.

If Britain is leaving, it is time to undo their damage to the Union. Thanks to them, Schengen can't be applied to the entire EU. They are welcome to keep the CTA between Ireland and the UK, by joining the Schengen.

 

[Pancake Mix]

It is completely counter to your point. You assume Belgium would back Spain to avoid a Flemish independence. But the sepatarist party is actually the biggest ruling party in Belgium... They would need to approve the Belgian block stance, which would run counter to their program.

You do realise how Belgium works right? They have a minority of seats and govern in a coalition, like always. That's just your first issue. The majority of Flemish people don't support separatism and the Belgium government works via consensus.

If Britain is leaving, it is time to undo their damage to the Union. Thanks to them, Schengen can't be applied to the entire EU. They are welcome to keep the CTA between Ireland and the UK, by joining the Schengen.

Good grief. Ireland has never pressed for the CTA to be dissolved into Schengen. They're quite happy with the current situation. You are taking a paternalistic view to Ireland.

 

[Joni]

You do realise how Belgium works right? They have a minority of seats and govern in a coalition, like always. That's just your first issue. The majority of Flemish people don't support separatism and the Belgium government works via consensus.

Coalition governments also tend to fail when decisions are taken that don't have unity amongst the ruling parties, and combine that with the fact that the parties that don't support Flemish independence do tend to support Scottish inclusion in the EU. Like the party of Verhofstadt - the EU parliaments representative in the Brexit negotiations and the one most outspoken on Scottish inclusion - that is also part of the coalition, and their sister party who have supplied the prime minister. As the fourth party in the coalition is the ultra pro-EU CD&V (party of former EU president Herman Van Rompuy) which is also a pro-Flemish semi-independence they would also vote pro-Scotland. So that coalition government is four parties that are pro-Scotland.

Good grief. Ireland has never pressed for the CTA to be dissolved into Schengen. They're quite happy with the current situation. You are taking a paternalistic view to Ireland.

Ireland is a single country. Negotiations will not be lead by one single country and the EU solution should be one of the greater good, not the one that is only good enough for Ireland. You're now applying British exceptionalism to Ireland as well. Time for Britain to learn they are not special. EU should work from the solution best for all 450 million citizens, which is Schengen. Which is also what Britain would need to expect in a Norway or a Switzerland solution.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Coalition governments also tend to fail when decisions are taken that don't have unity amongst the ruling parties, and combine that with the fact that the parties that don't support Flemish independence do tend to support Scottish inclusion in the EU. Like the party of Verhofstadt - the EU parliaments representative in the Brexit negotiations and the one most outspoken on Scottish inclusion - that is also part of the coalition, and their sister party who have supplied the prime minister. As the fourth party in the coalition is the ultra pro-EU CD&V (party of former EU president Herman Van Rompuy) which is also a pro-Flemish semi-independence they would also vote pro-Scotland. So that coalition government is four parties that are pro-Scotland.

Ireland is a single country. Negotiations will not be lead by one single country and the EU solution should be one of the greater good, not the one that is only good enough for Ireland. You're now applying British exceptionalism to Ireland as well. Time for Britain to learn they are not special. EU should work from the solution best for all 450 million citizens, which is Schengen. Which is also what Britain would need to expect in a Norway or a Switzerland solution.

You have no evidence to support that they're "pro-Scotland" with your view of what pro-Scotland means. My understanding is that they've stayed out of the issue, and regardless, it's what happens at the EU, not internally in Belgium, that matters. All it takes is one member to veto. The UK will negotiate as one country and the EU has affirmed that they respect the territorial integrity of member (and hopefully ex-member) states and there'll be one negotiating partner:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/742019/EU-Scotland-Brexit-deal-Nicola-Sturgeon-Jeane-Claude-Juncker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/nicola-sturgeon-heading-to-brussels-for-talks-with-european-parl/

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-scotland-spain-rejects-sturgeon-proposals-for-a-separate-scottish-brexit-2016-12

Now, I said at the beginning I had no evidence to support my assertion on Belgium, just that it would not be surprising (depending on who is in power at that moment in time). Most seats in the Belgian parliament are at the very least nominally pro-Belgium.

Moving along, whether you like it or not, the issue of Ireland will factor into the negotiations in a significant way as there is a commitment to keep that border open, and Irish citizens are essentially not considered foreign under British law. No condescending attitude or obsession with an entirely centralised Europe will change that. Opt-outs were negotiated in good faith and the EU has always respected them. It's irrelevant what your feelings are on the matter, and I don't believe for a second that the European Union cares about such a minor thing. There was already free movement, just with border controls. Virtually nobody has any issue with it, except you.

 

[Joni]

You have no evidence to support that they're "pro-Scotland" with your view of what pro-Scotland means. My understanding is that they've stayed out of the issue, and regardless, it's what happens at the EU, not internally in Belgium, that matters. All it takes is one member to veto. The UK will negotiate as one country and the EU has affirmed that they respect the territorial integrity of member (and hopefully ex-member) states and there'll be one negotiating partner:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/742019/EU-Scotland-Brexit-deal-Nicola-Sturgeon-Jeane-Claude-Juncker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/nicola-sturgeon-heading-to-brussels-for-talks-with-european-parl/

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-scotland-spain-rejects-sturgeon-proposals-for-a-separate-scottish-brexit-2016-12

Now, I said at the beginning I had no evidence to support my assertion on Belgium, just that it would not be surprising (depending on who is in power at that moment in time). Most seats in the Belgian parliament are at the very least nominally pro-Belgium.

Moving along, whether you like it or not, the issue of Ireland will factor into the negotiations in a significant way as there is a commitment to keep that border open, and Irish citizens are essentially not considered foreign under British law. No condescending attitude or obsession with an entirely centralised Europe will change that. Opt-outs were negotiated in good faith and the EU has always respected them. It's irrelevant what your feelings are on the matter, and I don't believe for a second that the European Union cares about such a minor thing. There was already free movement, just with border controls. Virtually nobody has any issue with it, except you.

It indeed doesn't matter so I don't know why you keep bringing up that idiot baseless idea. The idea that the biggest Flemish party would again be banned from governing might already mean a de facto split of belgium even before Scotland ever comes to the table. As for the pro Belgium nature of the Parliament, every Flemish party with seats has at one point voted for more power to Flanders and less to Belgium. It is completely different than Spain where the majority lives outside of the separatist province. Why do you keep pushing that idea despite having zero knowledge of Belgian politics.

As for free movement, with or without border controls, that is indeed the point of Schengen. If the UK wants a Norway or Switzerland deal, that should be included. As for who wants it, most British companies would be more than happy to have it. And yes, optouts were negotiated in good faith. UK broke that faith so there is no reason for allowing them to have those optouts is there? Ireland would need to join to keep its open border with the UK if we force it on the UK. Ireland would need a solution anyway. It cannot refuse any European citizen and the UK wants to block that migration. That means there is either a need for a border between Ireland and the UK, or between northern Ireland and Britain.

It might also be interesting to know Ireland had already met all provisions to enter Schengen more than ten years ago. It only has to activate it. Like when the UK needs to start checking eu citizens.

 

[Pancake Mix]

It indeed doesn't matter so I don't know why you keep bringing up that idiot baseless idea. The idea that the biggest Flemish party would again be banned from governing might already mean a de facto split of belgium even before Scotland ever comes to the table. As for the pro Belgium nature of the Parliament, every Flemish party with seats has at one point voted for more power to Flanders and less to Belgium. It is completely different than Spain where the majority lives outside of the separatist province. Why do you keep pushing that idea despite having zero knowledge of Belgian politics.

As for free movement, with or without border controls, that is indeed the point of Schengen. If the UK wants a Norway or Switzerland deal, that should be included. As for who wants it, most British companies would be more than happy to have it. And yes, optouts were negotiated in good faith. UK broke that faith so there is no reason for allowing them to have those optouts is there? Ireland would need to join to keep its open border with the UK if we force it on the UK. Ireland would need a solution anyway. It cannot refuse any European citizen and the UK wants to block that migration. That means there is either a need for a border between Ireland and the UK, or between northern Ireland and Britain.

It might also be interesting to know Ireland had already met all provisions to enter Schengen more than ten years ago. It only has to activate it. Like when the UK needs to start checking eu citizens.

Same reason you kept pushing your idea with no understanding of how British politics works, how opt-outs work or why the EU is fine with the small number of opt-outs member countries have and wasn't trying to push Schengen on the UK or the Republic of Ireland.

It really is of no consequence whether Ireland has met all the provisions, they have a permanent opt-out and as far as I can tell there's absolutely 0 desire to get rid of that opt-out. Why would there be? Why would Fine Gael or Fianna Fail care what you think? Why on earth do you think that because the UK is leaving, the Schengen opt-out should go anywhere? Ireland isn't going anywhere, nor would they need a solution if the UK remains in the customs union and European single market. Seems unlikely now, but let's see what happens after the new year. There could still be free movement, just with border controls to prevent non-European Union citizens from entering the UK, as they do not have that right to free movement.

Also, you know that the UK and the Republic of Ireland are not the only countries with opt-outs, right? Denmark has the same amount, four.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union

 

[Theonik]

Same reason you could pushing your idea with no understanding of how British politics works, how opt-outs work or why the EU is fine with the small number of opt-outs member countries have and wasn't trying to push Schengen on the UK or the Republic of Ireland. It really is of no consequence whether Ireland has met all the provisions, they have a permanent opt-out and as far as I can tell there's absolutely 0 desire to get rid of that opt-out. Why would there be? Why would Fine Gael or Fianna Fail care what you think? Why on earth do you think that because the UK is leaving, the Schengen opt-out should go anywhere? Ireland isn't going anywhere, nor would they need a solution if the UK remains in the Customs Union. Seems unlikely now, but let's see what happens after the new year.

Also, you know that the UK and the Republic of Ireland are not the only countries with opt-outs, right? Denmark has the same amount, four.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union

This isn't what he's saying. Those opt-outs are offered in good faith on the condition you don't live. Other members do resent them and of course the referendum will build on that resentment.

 

[Pancake Mix]

This isn't what he's saying. Those opt-outs are offered in good faith on the condition you don't live. Other members do resent them and of course the referendum will build on that resentment.

But I'm saying the Republic of Ireland is not going anywhere, but appreciates that opt-out well enough. I can't find any recent statement where they seemed annoyed about not being in Schengen. Yes, they're only in the CTA because of the UK, but do they care? No.

Poland, Denmark, and Ireland still have other negotiated opt-outs between them unrelated to the CTA. Regardless of whether they cause resentment, Denmark would certainly leave without them and they were important to both the Irish and Polish governments. All three are full members otherwise of the European Union and accept the four key areas that the European Union considers non-negotiable.

It's quite clear that the European Union takes a federal approach while Joni is only interested in a unitary approach.

 

[Theonik]

But none of those members are leaving the union. The opt-outs are there as an appreciation of the unique circumstances of those nations in an effort to make the union work. This goes out the window when you leave.

 

[Joni]

Same reason you kept pushing your idea with no understanding of how British politics works, how opt-outs work or why the EU is fine with the small number of opt-outs member countries have and wasn't trying to push Schengen on the UK or the Republic of Ireland.

It really is of no consequence whether Ireland has met all the provisions, they have a permanent opt-out and as far as I can tell there's absolutely 0 desire to get rid of that opt-out. Why would there be? Why would Fine Gael or Fianna Fail care what you think? Why on earth do you think that because the UK is leaving, the Schengen opt-out should go anywhere? Ireland isn't going anywhere, nor would they need a solution if the UK remains in the customs union and European single market. Seems unlikely now, but let's see what happens after the new year. There could still be free movement, just with border controls to prevent non-European Union citizens from entering the UK, as they do not have that right to free movement.

Also, you know that the UK and the Republic of Ireland are not the only countries with opt-outs, right? Denmark has the same amount, four.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union

But I'm saying the Republic of Ireland is not going anywhere, but appreciates that opt-out well enough. I can't find any recent statement where they seemed annoyed about not being in Schengen. Yes, they're only in the CTA because of the UK, but do they care? No.

Poland, Denmark, and Ireland still have other negotiated opt-outs between them unrelated to the CTA. Regardless of whether they cause resentment, Denmark would certainly leave without them and they were important to both the Irish and Polish governments. All three are full members otherwise of the European Union and accept the four key areas that the European Union considers non-negotiable.

It's quite clear that the European Union takes a federal approach while Joni is only interested in a unitary approach.

It is clear that we no longer need to give a fuck about what the UK wants when offering them a deal. We need to offer them a deal that is in the best interest of the EU. The optouts are there for eu member state UK. They won't be a member anymore so those optouts no longer matter. Why do you think the EU needs to think about the UK optouts? The EU should start from the idea that the UK is just a random European country and offer them the same deal as everyone. The Norway deal. The Swiss deal. Deals with Schengen. Ireland at that point will not be a sticking point as they can keep their open borders. Which will not be the case with a hard Brexit.

 

[Pancake Mix]

But none of those members are leaving the union. The opt-outs are there as an appreciation of the unique circumstances of those nations in an effort to make the union work. This goes out the window when you leave.

It absolutely does not go out the window if a remaining member appreciates that opt-out well enough. The Irish opt-out is permanent, not temporary. There's no reason for the EU to try to prove a point on Schengen of all things (which is irrelevant to free movement, it just means checks and balances to ensure that you are in fact an EU citizen entitled to that free movement).

Both of you are trying to make an issue where there's not one.

It is clear that we no longer need to give a fuck about what the UK wants when offering them a deal. We need to offer them a deal that is in the best interest of the EU. The optouts are there for eu member state UK. They won't be a member anymore so those optouts no longer matter. Why do you think the EU needs to think about the UK optouts? The EU should start from the idea that the UK is just a random European country and offer them the same deal as everyone. The Norway deal. The Swiss deal. Deals with Schengen. Ireland at that point will not be a sticking point as they can keep their open borders. Which will not be the case with a hard Brexit.

A deal in the best interests of the EU will not be one that essentially forces a hard Brexit by removing the CTA arrangement, which was just renewed 5 years ago after years of talks.

I can't believe you both actually want the CTA to end when Schengen enabled that Berlin attacker to cross at least 2 frontiers with ease. There's a permanent opt-out on Ireland's part that was negotiated with the understanding that Ireland would not have to join Schengen under any circumstances. Any change in the status of the border of Northern Ireland could destablise things and everybody involved knows it.

The EU is holding firm on what they consider their four basic freedoms, and that's what they'll do. They might try to extract some sort of price to discourage leaving, but they won't deliberately sabotage the process I'd like to think by seriously demanding an open border outside the CTA. This isn't some dick-measuring contest.

 

[Joni]

A deal in the best interests of the EU will not be one that essentially forces a hard Brexit by removing the CTA arrangement, which was just renewed 5 years ago after years of talks.

There's a permanent opt-out on Ireland's part that was negotiated with the understanding that Ireland would not have to join Schengen under any circumstances. Any change in the status of the border of Northern Ireland could destablise things and everybody involved knows it.

It is simple: Britain cannot maintain a deal that keeps completely open borders with Ireland while having completely guarded borders for the European Union. Any European Union citizen is allowed to easily enter Ireland in that case. If they keep the Common Travel Area, these Europeans can cross into Great Britain. A hard Brexit automatically has consequences on the Common Travel Area, by nature of hard Brexit locking out any EU citizens. The Northern Ireland deal depends on either Ireland leaving the European Union or Great Britain not enforcing a hard Brexit or keeping border controls between Northern Ireland and England/Scotland/Wales. It is a problem you keep overlooking.

I can't believe you both actually want the CTA to end when Schengen enabled that Berlin attacker to cross at least 2 frontiers with ease.

The benefits are a lot bigger than the negatives. It is typical populist bullshit to hang on those cases. You'd make a great UKIPer though. You could claim there is a need for a Scottish-English border check as well because a terrorist could travel that as well.

The EU is holding firm on what they consider their four basic freedoms, and that's what they'll do. They might try to extract some sort of price to discourage leaving, but they won't deliberately sabotage the process I'd like to think by seriously demanding an open border outside the CTA. This isn't some dick-measuring contest.

The Amsterdam treaty introduced the Schengen area into those four freedoms. It is why every new country is forced into Schengen. Europe gave Great Britain an optout in good faith, but it can now start the offer from the traditional package: four freedoms with Schengen included. Ireland mainly has a stake in this because they want to keep open borders with the UK. By Brexit means Brexit, the UK already requires blowing up that agreement; even if they haven't realized that. It is why so many people warned about the effects of Brexit on the Northern Ireland peace. Or you know, there is an actual report that got suppressed:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ppressed-referendum-vote-latest-a7334581.html

 

[Pancake Mix]

It is simple: Britain cannot maintain a deal that keeps completely open borders with Ireland while having completely guarded borders for the European Union. Any European Union citizen is allowed to easily enter Ireland in that case. If they keep the Common Travel Area, these Europeans can cross into Great Britain. A hard Brexit automatically has consequences on the Common Travel Area, by nature of hard Brexit locking out any EU citizens. The Northern Ireland deal depends on either Ireland leaving the European Union or Great Britain not enforcing a hard Brexit or keeping border controls between Northern Ireland and England/Scotland/Wales. It is a problem you keep overlooking.



The benefits are a lot bigger than the negatives. It is typical populist bullshit to hang on those cases. You'd make a great UKIPer though. You could claim there is a need for a Scottish-English border check as well because a terrorist could travel that as well.



The Amsterdam treaty introduced the Schengen area into those four freedoms. It is why every new country is forced into Schengen. Europe gave Great Britain an optout in good faith, but it can now start the offer from the traditional package: four freedoms with Schengen included. Ireland mainly has a stake in this because they want to keep open borders with the UK. By Brexit means Brexit, the UK already requires blowing up that agreement; even if they haven't realized that. It is why so many people warned about the effects of Brexit on the Northern Ireland peace. Or you know, there is an actual report that got suppressed:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ppressed-referendum-vote-latest-a7334581.html

Oh, you're a real charmer.

Claiming I'd be a good UKIPer, really? The only reason I don't support Labour is Corbyn's poor positions on:


*Trident (he's against a practical deterrent),


*Northern Ireland (he's against the self-determination of the people of Northern Ireland, and his office has a Sinn Fein staffer; appalling),


*The Falkland Islands (he's willing to have shared sovereignty with Argentina, this despite almost every Falklander wanting British sovereignty only, despite the islands having no indigenous population , and being British long before they were ever Spanish or Argentine). Nearest neighbour means nothing in regards to sovereignty under international law; what is far more important is historical ties, and there's only a brief, later period of those to Spain or Argentina.

*He's also anti-monarch despite it most likely having significant majority support and bringing in a significant amount of tourism, for starters.

On most things I'm centre-left, but if that means bending over for your bizarre fantasy of what the EU will demand in negotiations, then no. They may bring up Schengen to start but not seriously, they can stick to their four principles like always, which can be done without Schengen. It's not happening, and it's clear you don't give a shit about the Republic of Ireland and the disruption it would have on their economy if that demand was (seriously) made. Yes, they're only outside of Schengen because of the UK, but they clearly do not mind one bit; while what they would mind is a disruption in trade and the Irish border. A disruption you wouldn't mind because of your obvious hurt feelings at the UK leaving, even if it hurts staunch EU members too. Charming.

It's also foolish because we have an extremely recent example in Berlin of the risk of not having checks at the point of entry. Extremists can slip by, sadly. If you're an EU citizen truly entitled to freedom of movement, then to stay in the single market something might indeed be worked out, and I hope it is. But that something will still be outside Schengen. The Irish opt-out is permanent and your strange plan would undermine it.

I'm really confused why you don't seem to have any respect for negotiated permanent opt-outs that would effect remaining members, but I'm certainly glad you're not in charge because your positions would cause innumerable problems.

 

[Xando]

The man Donald Trump has appointed as his incoming commerce secretary believes Britain’s “period of confusion” provides the perfect opportunity for countries to poach business from the U.K., the Telegraph reported Monday.

Wilbur Ross told Cypriot financiers in the wake of the U.K.’s EU referendum, before his appointment by Trump, that Brexit was a “God-given opportunity” to the City’s rivals, citing Frankfurt and Berlin in particular as being in a good position to tempt financial services firms away from the U.K.

“I recommend that Cyprus should adopt and immediately announce even more liberal financial service policies than it already has so that it can try to take advantage of the inevitable relocations that will occur during the period of confusion,” Ross said.

The incoming commerce secretary has also said Brexit was the “most expensive divorce proceeding in the history of the world,” and endorsed the Trump trade doctrine, under which any new trade deal must increase the U.S. GDP growth rate, reduce its trade deficit and strengthen its manufacturing base. The U.K. has a trade surplus with the U.S.

Barry Gardiner, Labour’s shadow international trade secretary, told the Times that “Wilbur Ross’s comments are a stark reminder that the trade deals Britain will agree in future will not depend on goodwill from our partners, but on their own shrewd political and economic calculations.”

Brexit supporters have previously said the U.K. would be able to secure a free trade agreement quickly with the U.S. after it left the EU.

http://www.politico.eu/article/trump-aide-told-countries-to-use-brexit-to-steal-trade/

What about the special relationship May is always talking about?

 

[Joni]

Oh, you're a real charmer. Claiming I'd be a good UKIPer, really? The only reason I don't support Labour is Corbyn's poor positions on:

It's also foolish because we have an extremely recent example in Berlin of the risk of not having checks at the point of entry. Extremists can slip by, sadly. If you're an EU citizen truly entitled to freedom of movement, then to stay in the single market something might indeed be worked out, and I hope it is. But that something will still be outside Schengen. The Irish opt-out is permanent and your strange plan would undermine it.

You're the one parrotting Farage's reasoning so I have no problem comparing you to an UKIPer. It is typical extremist retoric to use cases like this and ignore the obvious benefits. You do realize there is a benefit to the Common Travel Area, so by that logic you must understand there is an even bigger benefit to Ireland and Great Britain being in the Schengen as well. Those terrorists also manage to slip into countries like Australia and the United States whose border checks are even more advanced than those of the UK, so it isn't even a resolution to the problem. It is only making matters worse for regular citizens.

On most things I'm centre-left, but if that means bending over for your bizarre fantasy of what the EU will demand in negotiations, then no. They may bring up Schengen to start but not seriously, they can stick to their four principles like always, which can be done without Schengen. It's not happening, and it's clear you don't give a shit about the Republic of Ireland and the disruption it would have on their economy if that demand was (seriously) made. Yes, they're only outside of Schengen because of the UK, but they clearly do not mind one bit; while what they would mind is a disruption in trade and the Irish border. A disruption you wouldn't mind because of your obvious hurt feelings at the UK leaving, even if it hurts staunch EU members too. Charming.

Schengen is at the moment part of the four principles. Schengen is part of the Norway deal. Schengen is part of the Switzerland deal. So Schengen should be part of the UK deal offered. You are the ony keeping ignoring my point that the disruption is done: Brexit. Ireland cannot stop EU citizens coming in while Great Britain including Northern Ireland want to under Brexit means Brexit. Something you seem to agree with. SO explain how Ireland can be both CTA and not break their own single market rules.

I'm really confused why you don't seem to have any respect for negotiated permanent opt-outs that would effect remaining members, but I'm certainly glad you're not in charge because your positions would cause innumerable problems.

If Great Britain would be offered Schengen, Ireland would no longer need the optout. If Great Britain implements border checks between Ireland and Great Britain, CTA would be effectively ended and Ireland would be better without the optout. If Great Britain doesn't care that EU citizens can enter Great Britain through the CTA with Northern Ireland, then they could keep the optout but then I don't understand Brexit because that is about border checks and stopping people that Ireland could legally not stop. The reality of the optout is changed by a stupid British decision, so EU should do what is best for Ireland and bring them into the Schengen as Britain no longer wants an open border with the EU. Which still includes Ireland. But the people supporting Brexit think it would kill the EU so they didn't need to care.

Edit: the importance of Schengen for the Free Movement of Persons has been rising, as seen in the official EU documentation. If the UK entering into a new agreement is seen as a new start, it is with Schengen as part of the standard package. It isn't a bizarre fantasy, it is the rules. If the UK wants single market access, it should implement the four freedoms as they are now, not as they were when they were an EU member. They are leaving, so they should no longer get their optout.

Freedom of movement and residence for persons in the EU is the cornerstone of Union citizenship, which was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Its practical implementation in EU law, however, has not been straightforward. It first involved the gradual phasing-out of internal borders under the Schengen agreements, initially in just a handful of Member States. Today, the provisions governing the free movement of persons are laid down in Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, although substantial implementation obstacles persist.

The key milestone in establishing an internal market with free movement of persons was the conclusion of the two Schengen agreements, i.e. the Agreement proper of 14 June 1985, and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which was signed on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995. Initially, the Schengen implementing Convention (signed only by Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) was based on intergovernmental cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs. A protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty provided for the transfer of the ‘Schengen acquis’ (5.12.4) into the Treaties. Today, under the Lisbon Treaty, it is subject to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny. As most Schengen rules are now part of the EU acquis, it has no longer been possible, since the EU enlargement of 1 May 2004, for accession countries to ‘opt out’ (Article 7 of the Schengen Protocol).

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_2.1.3.html

 

[Theonik]

There is also a very strong sentiment among the EU negotiating party that exit proceedings should not have the leaving party keep any of the opt-outs and should be treated as a joining member. That means Shengen will be part of any offer if they make good on that promise.

 

[Pancake Mix]

You're the one parrotting Farage's reasoning so I have no problem comparing you to an UKIPer. It is typical extremist retoric to use cases like this and ignore the obvious benefits. You do realize there is a benefit to the Common Travel Area, so by that logic you must understand there is an even bigger benefit to Ireland and Great Britain being in the Schengen as well. Those terrorists also manage to slip into countries like Australia and the United States whose border checks are even more advanced than those of the UK, so it isn't even a resolution to the problem. It is only making matters worse for regular citizens.



Schengen is at the moment part of the four principles. Schengen is part of the Norway deal. Schengen is part of the Switzerland deal. So Schengen should be part of the UK deal offered. You are the ony keeping ignoring my point that the disruption is done: Brexit. Ireland cannot stop EU citizens coming in while Great Britain including Northern Ireland want to under Brexit means Brexit. Something you seem to agree with. SO explain how Ireland can be both CTA and not break their own single market rules.



If Great Britain would be offered Schengen, Ireland would no longer need the optout. If Great Britain implements border checks between Ireland and Great Britain, CTA would be effectively ended and Ireland would be better without the optout. If Great Britain doesn't care that EU citizens can enter Great Britain through the CTA with Northern Ireland, then they could keep the optout but then I don't understand Brexit because that is about border checks and stopping people that Ireland could legally not stop. The reality of the optout is changed by a stupid British decision, so EU should do what is best for Ireland and bring them into the Schengen as Britain no longer wants an open border with the EU. Which still includes Ireland. But the people supporting Brexit think it would kill the EU so they didn't need to care.

Edit: the importance of Schengen for the Free Movement of Persons has been rising, as seen in the official EU documentation. If the UK entering into a new agreement is seen as a new start, it is with Schengen as part of the standard package. It isn't a bizarre fantasy, it is the rules. If the UK wants single market access, it should implement the four freedoms as they are now, not as they were when they were an EU member. They are leaving, so they should no longer get their optout.





http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_2.1.3.html

It is not fringe thinking to not want to be in Schengen. Maybe it is different on the continent where nobody has that opt-out, but thinking you know better and disrupting the trade of a member who negotiated what was supposed to be essentially a final arrangement in good faith (Ireland) will not be well-received by that EU member. It would raise serious questions for Denmark, Poland, and Ireland's (surprise) other opt-outs too, all negotiated with the European Union in good faith. The Schengen opt-out might not be your thing, but it adds a little more assurance for a great number of people on the fringes of Europe, and most of those people are near the centre of the political spectrum I would venture to guess. Not your enemy. Schengen is not part of the four principles in regards to Ireland, which has a very, very old opt-out that should hopefully be respected. Everybody knows that as long as free movement for people entitled is continued, then everything is fine. It's not an opt-out that would be made anymore, but it was supposed to be entirely up to the UK and the Republic of Ireland, one of whom isn't leaving.

The best deal (though I'm not saying this is what will happen) will still entitle EU citizens to that free movement in exchange for single market and customs union access (obviously for the whole UK). It will just be in the CTA as it has been for a long time now. It'd be a good compromise that would make nobody happy.

If you someone has no legal right to free movement as the EU, the Republic of Ireland, and the UK have decided, then they just don't, period. What I'm talking about would not affect EU citizens any more than it already does. Everyone found a situation they could live with in 1998, partially thanks to the EU perhaps. It is not too much to ask to allow one of the earlier members (Ireland has another opt-out and initially rejected the Lisbon treaty too) to continue on with its old travel arrangement. As an early member it had a special choice and that choice is supposed to be respected permanently in all future negotiations. You may find it a bit strange, even stupid, but I really don't think it's too much to ask that you would respect the archipelago's opt-out.

There is also a very strong sentiment among the EU negotiating party that exit proceedings should not have the leaving party keep any of the opt-outs and should be treated as a joining member. That means Shengen will be part of any offer if they make good on that promise.

It would cause a disruption to trade, plus we just saw this week that Schengen is risky (as extremists can take advantage of completely open borders) and Ireland has been with the UK in rarely talking about leaving the opt-out for Schengen. Last time this seriously came up the Irish Taoseach said, quite simply, "no." I don't think that position has changed. It may be talked about at first, but I don't think the EU will seriously try to force Schengen on the UK (and thus the Republic of Ireland). Nobody wants to fuck over the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in proceedings and it would be entirely on the EU if they essentially bypassed Ireland's permanent opt-out (or rather, the reason for that permanent opt-out), not the rest of the UK.

I have a strong feeling that things could work out if everyone would just compromise.

Again, one UK-wide deal that will make absolutely nobody happy (especially the SNP, the right-wing of the Tories, and UKIP, but genuinely, I mean absolutely nobody) would really be best. It'd be "Norway minus" or "Switzerland plus-minus". It can work. The arrangement might even grow on people over time. I suspect a lot of people are content in those countries with the arrangement and I believe it can work.

 

[Joni]

It is not fringe thinking to not want to be in Schengen. Maybe it is different on the continent where nobody has that opt-out, but thinking you know better and disrupting the trade of a member who negotiated what was supposed to be essentially a final arrangement in good faith (Ireland) will not be well-received by that EU member. It would raise serious questions for Denmark, Poland, and Ireland's (surprise) other opt-outs too, all negotiated with the European Union in good faith. The Schengen opt-out might not be your thing, but it adds a little more assurance for a great number of people on the fringes of Europe, and most of those people are near the centre of the political spectrum I would venture to guess. Not your enemy. Schengen is not part of the four principles in regards to Ireland, which has a very, very old opt-out that should hopefully be respected. Everybody knows that as long as free movement for people entitled is continued, then everything is fine. It's not an opt-out that would be made anymore, but it was supposed to be entirely up to the UK and the Republic of Ireland, one of whom isn't leaving.

The best deal (though I'm not saying this is what will happen) will still entitle EU citizens to that free movement in exchange for single market and customs union access (obviously for the whole UK). It will just be in the CTA as it has been for a long time now. It'd be a good compromise that would make nobody happy.

If you someone has no legal right to free movement as the EU, the Republic of Ireland, and the UK have decided, then they just don't, period. What I'm talking about would not affect EU citizens any more than it already does. Everyone found a situation they could live with in 1998, partially thanks to the EU perhaps. It is not too much to ask to allow one of the earlier members (Ireland has another opt-out and initially rejected the Lisbon treaty too) to continue on with its old travel arrangement. As an early member it had a special choice and that choice is supposed to be respected permanently in all future negotiations. You may find it a bit strange, even stupid, but I really don't think it's too much to ask that you would respect the archipelago's opt-out.



It would cause a disruption to trade, plus we just saw this week that Schengen is risky (as extremists can take advantage of completely open borders) and Ireland has been with the UK in rarely talking about leaving the opt-out for Schengen. Last time this seriously came up the Irish Taoseach said, quite simply, "no." I don't think that position has changed. It may be talked about at first, but I don't think the EU will seriously try to force Schengen on the UK (and thus the Republic of Ireland). Nobody wants to fuck over the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in proceedings and it would be entirely on the EU if they essentially bypassed Ireland's permanent opt-out (or rather, the reason for that permanent opt-out), not the rest of the UK.

I have a strong feeling that things could work out if everyone would just compromise.

Again, one UK-wide deal that will make absolutely nobody happy (especially the SNP, the right-wing of the Tories, and UKIP, but genuinely, I mean absolutely nobody) would really be best. It'd be "Norway minus" or "Switzerland plus-minus". It can work. The arrangement might even grow on people over time. I suspect a lot of people are content in those countries with the arrangement and I believe it can work.

Ireland has an opt-out in the good faith that Britain would also stay, which is no longer the case. You are working from the idea that the EU would abolish the opt-out because they want to. They need to change because Britain is changing the deal. Britain either takes single market which includes Schengen because fuck any deal that lets Britain keep their optouts when they are applying for a new deal, which means Ireland needs Schengen as well to remain in line with the UK while opening up better trades with the main land. Or it doesn't take single market in which case Ireland needs border checks that can block certain citizens, either with the UK or with the EU. The latter would be illegal so unless the UK splits off northern Ireland to its own agreement it would kill CTA making Schengen the only potential solution for Ireland. Brexit kills CTA, Schengen for Ireland is a solution for a problem the UK has caused. But one thing is clear, if the EU follows the rules for single market it will offer Schengen as part of the four freedoms. Which means CTA only has reason to exist if the UK splits or the brexit doesn't go through. Because the EU should stick to its own rules, which like I have shown include Schengen. For the EU, for Norway, for Switzerland, for Iceland, for almost every mainland country until the eastern border of the Union. Why would the UK have a right to an exception when applying to become a single market member? Their optouts no longer count, new members don't get those.

Schengen for Ireland is the safety net that Ireland gets when the UK fucks them over. Which is why Farage and others have ignored reports how brexit would fuck over northern Ireland, because it was all already in there.

TLDR: Ireland can't keep the status quo when its main partner changed it. It is like staying in a marriage when the second partner wants to go away. Luckily Ireland has a friend that wants to give it a house to live in.

 

[sammex]

Cassetteboy brexit remix

Edit: Choice of brexit now includes clean (as opposed to messy?), as well as your usual hard, soft, over easy, well done, and medium rare. Cup of tea comes included.

'Clean Brexit' could save UK £450m a week, claims pro-leave group

 

[CyclopsRock]

Genuine question: why does anyone on the continent give a shit if the UK (and Ireland) is in Schengan or not?

 

[Heartfyre]

Ireland has an opt-out in the good faith that Britain would also stay, which is no longer the case. You are working from the idea that the EU would abolish the opt-out because they want to. They need to change because Britain is changing the deal. Britain either takes single market which includes Schengen because fuck any deal that lets Britain keep their optouts when they are applying for a new deal, which means Ireland needs Schengen as well to remain in line with the UK while opening up better trades with the main land. Or it doesn't take single market in which case Ireland needs border checks that can block certain citizens, either with the UK or with the EU. The latter would be illegal so unless the UK splits off northern Ireland to its own agreement it would kill CTA making Schengen the only potential solution for Ireland. Brexit kills CTA, Schengen for Ireland is a solution for a problem the UK has caused. But one thing is clear, if the EU follows the rules for single market it will offer Schengen as part of the four freedoms. Which means CTA only has reason to exist if the UK splits or the brexit doesn't go through. Because the EU should stick to its own rules, which like I have shown include Schengen. For the EU, for Norway, for Switzerland, for Iceland, for almost every mainland country until the eastern border of the Union. Why would the UK have a right to an exception when applying to become a single market member? Their optouts no longer count, new members don't get those.

Schengen for Ireland is the safety net that Ireland gets when the UK fucks them over. Which is why Farage and others have ignored reports how brexit would fuck over northern Ireland, because it was all already in there.

TLDR: Ireland can't keep the status quo when its main partner changed it. It is like staying in a marriage when the second partner wants to go away. Luckily Ireland has a friend that wants to give it a house to live in.

For the most part, yeah, it's the UK's problem to fix. They either want to control their border with Ireland, or they want to keep the Common Travel Area. These are incompatible endpoints, and so far, we've seen inconsistent behaviour regarding which end they are favouring. They've said many times they want to maintain the Common Travel Area, which would be great for us in Ireland. But then May has said in Westminster that there would need to be passport checks at the border for people coming from Northern Ireland, which is hardly a Common Travel Area. UK citizens will have to use a passport to travel from the UK to the UK in that case. It may wind up being some situation where UK and Irish passports get waved through in much the same way as UK and Irish citizens basically get waved through at the border of any EU country, but that's still not the CTA as it stands today.

Ireland's not going to turn away any EU citizen because of Brexit, so if that open border with the north is going to stay, then being an EU external border would be a smaller problem compared to what the UK must face. If a closed border and a customs check did wind up appearing, though very very unlikely, I can guarantee that Ireland would at least consider the option for Schengen. We maintain the CTA because it is economically and politically advantageous for us to do so, but depending on the actions of the British government, if Ireland has no more advantage in maintaining this opt-out than if we had the advantages of Schengen, then why wouldn't it be considered? If Ireland's relationship with the UK would be identical within or without of Schengen, why would there be hesitation?

Considering the UK remains Ireland's biggest export market, Ireland will try to maintain free trade with the UK no matter what its political circumstances. That both countries have such a close, symbiotic relationship is the reason why both are outwardly saying they want to maintain the Common Travel Area. Yet if it is to be maintained, it will be the UK that will have to compromise on its stance on immigration. Ireland joining Schengen while the UK doesn't is only the end result of the hardest of Hard Brexits. Both countries joining Schengen is only the result of a complete betrayal of all the rhetoric the Conservatives have blathered since the referendum.

 

[Joni]

Genuine question: why does anyone on the continent give a shit if the UK (and Ireland) is in Schengan or not?

Travel is way easier without border checks. As is transport of goods.

 

[Theonik]

Travel is way easier without border checks. As is transport of goods.

It is also a political sticking point. There is a message to send.

 

[Phantast2k]

Cassetteboy remix the news: 2016 review special – video | News | The Guardian

 

[Pancake Mix]

Ireland has an opt-out in the good faith that Britain would also stay, which is no longer the case. You are working from the idea that the EU would abolish the opt-out because they want to. They need to change because Britain is changing the deal. Britain either takes single market which includes Schengen because fuck any deal that lets Britain keep their optouts when they are applying for a new deal, which means Ireland needs Schengen as well to remain in line with the UK while opening up better trades with the main land.

'Shakes head'

No, that's the EU changing the deal on Ireland, and only the EU. The CTA was just renewed and worked fine within the single market before, because earlier members could stay out of it. You don't seem to understand that Norway and Switzerland also operate as if they have several opt-outs (like the UK), just not Schengen. Switzerland and Norway, for example, don't even operate in the Customs Union... The UK could be the reverse, outside Schengen, but inside the Customs Union.

It's so pointless to try to force Schengen and I really doubt it will happen, though it may be brought up at first. It would certainly preclude a deal with the UK and it would be the EU fucking over a continuing member to boot, and only the EU I might add.

Travel is way easier without border checks. As is transport of goods.

Nobody cared before and it didn't cause any issues worth reporting about. Too bad.

It is also a political sticking point. There is a message to send.

There's a message to send to you both that that you're being absurd.

Genuine question: why does anyone on the continent give a shit if the UK (and Ireland) is in Schengan or not?

It doesn't, it's a dick-measuring contest, plain and simple. "There is a message to send" gives it away.

 

[Theonik]

It doesn't, it's a dick-measuring contest, plain and simple. "There is a message to send" gives it away.

Welcome to politics.

There is also an importance in setting a precedent here. Allowing leaving members to start negotiating from their current position then pick which benefits and opt outs they want to keep is really dangerous. This decision would determine the likelihood of future members leaving and their outcomes. It is not a far fetched position to take.

 

[Joni]

'Shakes head'

No, that's the EU changing the deal on Ireland, and only the EU. The CTA was just renewed and worked fine within the single market before, because earlier members could stay out of it. You don't seem to understand that Norway and Switzerland also operate as if they have several opt-outs (like the UK), just not Schengen. Switzerland and Norway, for example, don't even operate in the Customs Union... The UK could be the reverse, outside Schengen, but inside the Customs Union.

Maybe a clean brexit is indeed best. That way we can see how long it takes for the UK to reverse the decision.
It's so pointless to try to force Schengen and I really doubt it will happen, though it may be brought up at first. It would certainly preclude a deal with the UK and it would be the EU fucking over a continuing member to boot, and only the EU I might add.

The single market rules include Schengen. It is part of the four freedoms. If the UK wants to enter a deal with the EU with single market, it should accept Schengen. It is not that hard to understand that Schengen is included in single market since 2004. Why do you think the UK has more rights than any other state? They are free to refuse single market but that makes CTA impossible no matter the renewal. The terms of that renewal only work if both countries are eu or single market at least. So how do you think the UK and Ireland should resolve the EU citizen border checks if the UK doesn't do single market and four freedoms?

 

[Pancake Mix]

Welcome to politics.

There is also an importance in setting a precedent here. Allowing leaving members to start negotiating from their current position then pick which benefits and opt outs they want to keep is really dangerous. This decision would determine the likelihood of future members leaving and their outcomes. It is not a far fetched position to take.

There might be a small political price to discourage anyone else from leaving, but forcing the system you're talking about is not a small price at all and I can assure you it'd be a goodbye to a close relationship instead.

The single market rules include Schengen. It is part of the four freedoms. If the UK wants to enter a deal with the EU with single market, it should accept Schengen. It is not that hard to understand that Schengen is included in single market since 2004. Why do you think the UK has more rights than any other state? They are free to refuse single market but that makes CTA impossible no matter the renewal. The terms of that renewal only work if both countries are eu or single market at least. So how do you think the UK and Ireland should resolve the EU citizen border checks if the UK doesn't do single market and four freedoms?

It was never part of the EU's rules for the British Isles. A single market deal with the UK that abides by those four rules the same way Ireland does should not be impossible. Forcing Schengen on the UK when leaving is also forcing another member (Ireland) to leave what was supposed to be a permanent opt-out negotiated in good faith. It would cause a significant disruption to their economy.

But we're just going over the same talking points again. We'll find out next year.

 

[Joni]

It was never part of the EU's rules for the British Isles.

You might have missed it but the UK blew up that deal with brexit. They want a new deal so that should be the position of the EU.