Scotland would have to be barking mad to let N.I anywhere near political decisions. Happily the weird cousins across the water, but I'd rather not have those jokers a closer seat at the table.

Edit: It may sound callus, but one of the appeals of Scotland going independent is not having the whole Irish question as a headache. You would have some Bitter Orange Order dildos on a parade occasionally and a bit of argy bargy on the usual wank sectarian lines for even less of fuck all of a reason now, and that would be it. Irish reunification is a generation away in real terms at my best guess.

fisherman wrote:Thanks.

I have no problem with Scotland trying to get the best Brexit it can. But Scotland inserting itself and getting the same deal as NI does not solve the NI border problem (which was your original claim), UK consent for such an outcome would be less likely rather than more likely.

You're welcome. I guess.

The necessary requirements to leave the EU have been provided by an EU that has met it legal obligations to the sovereign UK Government. It's an example of good governance. Northern Ireland has no objection (beyond the DUP) to the Backstop being implemented as it is in accord with their best interests. Eire likewise.

It's important to stress that Scotland isn't trying for or having any influence on the agreements being reached for leaving the EU. Those efforts were rebuffed by the UK. What's they're doing is pointing out that the current agreements mean that;

1. In principle there areas of the UK that may remain de facto members of EU and experience no material change in circumstances as a result.

2. That such a change in circumstances being implemented in Scotland meets their own political pledge to hold an independence Referendum.

3. The option available to the Scottish in that referendum is political declaration of independence with a plan to join the EU and thus enjoy the same benefits as Northern Ireland with the added benefits of representation at all levels of the EU (just like Eire).

The Northern Ireland problem is actually more about MPs in Westminster who confuse the idea of "one nation <insert political stripe here>" with leading a single country instead of a duty to rule a union of distinct kingdoms. A lot them favour leaving the EU but find the Backstop objectionable.

The people who want the UK to leave the EU have to face up to the reality that they cannot ignore the backstop nor implement the WA without leading to the area of free movement that map illustrates. By one means or another it happens. Either the WA gets passed and the independence referendum is called, or they grasp the nettle of good governance and realise that when faced with a divisive issue that splits the country 52/48 you govern for the 100% and voluntarily implement a policy that includes those hard borders whilst matching the spirit of the EU referendum. Those hard borders have to be drawn if you want to leave and it seems the only way to retain free movement across the majority of the British Isles is by either of these routes.

The only other option is cancel Article 50.

fisherman wrote:
Unfortunately, I am an unoriginal thinker, so nothing to offer of note.

Three years ago, I thought it was a sure thing that we would coalesce around an EFTA/EEA solution. It would still be possible to achieve if Parliament had accepted the deal. But it seems the further from the referendum the more polarised we have become. It is now possible to consider that the English majority might withdraw consent for the union (which was unthinkable 3 years ago) to ensure the correct Brexit is achieved.

What exactly is a correct Brexit?

The EFTA/EEA solution remains open. But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups. The question remains then why would you vote to leave the EU as some sort of path to lesser EU membership that is in compliance with the EU but without any ability to shape policy?

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:Thanks.

I have no problem with Scotland trying to get the best Brexit it can. But Scotland inserting itself and getting the same deal as NI does not solve the NI border problem (which was your original claim), UK consent for such an outcome would be less likely rather than more likely.

You're welcome. I guess.

The necessary requirements to leave the EU have been provided by an EU that has met it legal obligations to the sovereign UK Government. It's an example of good governance. Northern Ireland has no objection (beyond the DUP) to the Backstop being implemented as it is in accord with their best interests. Eire likewise.

It's important to stress that Scotland isn't trying for or having any influence on the agreements being reached for leaving the EU. Those efforts were rebuffed by the UK. What's they're doing is pointing out that the current agreements mean that;

1. In principle there areas of the UK that may remain de facto members of EU and experience no material change in circumstances as a result.

2. That such a change in circumstances being implemented in Scotland meets their own political pledge to hold an independence Referendum.

3. The option available to the Scottish in that referendum is political declaration of independence with a plan to join the EU and thus enjoy the same benefits as Northern Ireland with the added benefits of representation at all levels of the EU (just like Eire).

The Northern Ireland problem is actually more about MPs in Westminster who confuse the idea of "one nation <insert political stripe here>" with leading a single country instead of a duty to rule a union of distinct kingdoms. A lot them favour leaving the EU but find the Backstop objectionable.

The people who want the UK to leave the EU have to face up to the reality that they cannot ignore the backstop nor implement the WA without leading to the area of free movement that map illustrates. By one means or another it happens. Either the WA gets passed and the independence referendum is called, or they grasp the nettle of good governance and realise that when faced with a divisive issue that splits the country 52/48 you govern for the 100% and voluntarily implement a policy that includes those hard borders whilst matching the spirit of the EU referendum. Those hard borders have to be drawn if you want to leave and it seems the only way to retain free movement across the majority of the British Isles is by either of these routes.

The only other option is cancel Article 50.

With respect, none of the above actually supports the view quoted below, expressed by you up thread, right?

zerne wrote:Thing is, Scotland remaining part of the EU is actually a solution to their NI border problem. Put the customs border between Scotland/England and Spain/Gibralatar. And if we gain independence and join the EU it can then serve as the hard border.

It may be that Scotland wins an independence referendum and successfully re-joins the EU, but this is what, a decade in the future, maybe more? Fine. But in the meantime, Halloween beckons and a no deal looms large.

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:
Unfortunately, I am an unoriginal thinker, so nothing to offer of note.

Three years ago, I thought it was a sure thing that we would coalesce around an EFTA/EEA solution. It would still be possible to achieve if Parliament had accepted the deal. But it seems the further from the referendum the more polarised we have become. It is now possible to consider that the English majority might withdraw consent for the union (which was unthinkable 3 years ago) to ensure the correct Brexit is achieved.

What exactly is a correct Brexit?

Judging by the Brexit Party and the candidate most likely to be the new PM; a no deal with unicorns, and stuff.

zerne wrote:The EFTA/EEA solution remains open. But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups.

My bold.

Not so. The red lines (current UK policy) - freedom of movement, paying into the EU budget, ECJ, etc.) prevent such a destination. But even were the red lines different and EFTA EEA was the desired destination there would have been no requirement to leave the EU and then apply to EFTA/EEA. A rational negotiation would have ensured a transition period enabled a seamless transition from the EU to the EEA.

ETA: Re-reading this, you are correct that the option is still open to us, and now from this point, almost certainly we would have to leave, then apply to rejoin. However, at the start of the process when A50 was triggered, it could have been different as I indicate above.

zerne wrote:The question remains then why would you vote to leave the EU as some sort of path to lesser EU membership that is in compliance with the EU but without any ability to shape policy?

It achieves the minimum legal definition of leaving the EU, honoring the referendum. It removes the UK from the EU political project and a possible future EU state while remaining a part of the regulatory regime. Not being in the customs union allows more independence of trade policy.

fisherman wrote:
With respect, none of the above actually supports the view quoted below, expressed by you up thread, right?

Thank you for your opinion. I am slightly more interested in the reasoning that should have accompanied it however.

fisherman wrote:It may be that Scotland wins an independence referendum and successfully re-joins the EU, but this is what, a decade in the future, maybe more? Fine. But in the meantime, Halloween beckons and a no deal looms large.

The Referendums (Scotland) Bill has been published and the constitution committee is taking evidence on it.

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamenta ... 11844.aspx

No deal should be regarded as a failure of governance. It also doesn't resolve any of the issues or agreements.

fisherman wrote:
Judging by the Brexit Party and the candidate most likely to be the new PM; a no deal with unicorns, and stuff.

I asked because you're the one who described it as correct. If you feel you can't support that description just say so.

zerne wrote:The EFTA/EEA solution remains open. But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups.

fisherman wrote:My bold.

Not so. The red lines (current UK policy) - freedom of movement, paying into the EU budget, ECJ, etc.) prevent such a destination. But even were the red lines different and EFTA EEA was the desired destination there would have been no requirement to leave the EU and then apply to EFTA/EEA. A rational negotiation would have ensured a transition period enabled a seamless transition from the EU to the EEA.

ETA: Re-reading this, you are correct that the option is still open to us, and now from this point, almost certainly we would have to leave, then apply to rejoin. However, at the start of the process when A50 was triggered, it could have been different as I indicate above.

What baffles me is that someone who supposedly desires some form of EFTA/EEA agreement would:
Lobby for a referendum to leave the EU
Vote to leave the EU
Support parties that want to the leave the EU
Supported triggering Article 50 (the legal mechanism for leaving the EU)
And then acts surprised when the result is leaving the EU and not EFTA/EEA

zerne wrote:The question remains then why would you vote to leave the EU as some sort of path to lesser EU membership that is in compliance with the EU but without any ability to shape policy?

fisherman wrote:It achieves the minimum legal definition of leaving the EU, honoring the referendum. It removes the UK from the EU political project and a possible future EU state while remaining a part of the regulatory regime. Not being in the customs union allows more independence of trade policy.

The minimum legal requirements are what are contained in the Withdrawal agreement.

The Brexiteers got their precious. They hates it.

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:
With respect, none of the above actually supports the view quoted below, expressed by you up thread, right?

Thank you for your opinion. I am slightly more interested in the reasoning that should have accompanied it however.

I did not see anywhere in your reply an explanation why, in the current crisis that is broadly hinging on and focusing on the only part of the UK that shares a land border with the EU, that shifting focus from where the problem is (at the border with the EU), to another part of the UK (that has no border with the EU), to create a hard border across the remaining unitary part of the UK (that shares no border with the EU), is a solution to the NI border problem.

It seems logical to me that the solution to the NI border problem lies in addressing the NI border problem.

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:
Judging by the Brexit Party and the candidate most likely to be the new PM; a no deal with unicorns, and stuff.

I asked because you're the one who described it as correct. If you feel you can't support that description just say so.

Context was if all the rational possible Brexits having been rejected, then fundies want the pure one, the only one, "the correct one".

It is now possible to consider that the English majority might withdraw consent for the union (which was unthinkable 3 years ago) to ensure the correct Brexit is achieved.

zerne wrote:
What baffles me is that someone who supposedly desires some form of EFTA/EEA agreement would:
Lobby for a referendum to leave the EU
Vote to leave the EU
Support parties that want to the leave the EU
Supported triggering Article 50 (the legal mechanism for leaving the EU)
And then acts surprised when the result is leaving the EU and not EFTA/EEA

zerne wrote:The question remains then why would you vote to leave the EU as some sort of path to lesser EU membership that is in compliance with the EU but without any ability to shape policy?

fisherman wrote:It achieves the minimum legal definition of leaving the EU, honoring the referendum. It removes the UK from the EU political project and a possible future EU state while remaining a part of the regulatory regime. Not being in the customs union allows more independence of trade policy.

The minimum legal requirements are what are contained in the Withdrawal agreement.

The Brexiteers got their precious. They hates it.

I think you are misunderstanding my position on Brexit and how I voted in the referendum.

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:
With respect, none of the above actually supports the view quoted below, expressed by you up thread, right?

Thank you for your opinion. I am slightly more interested in the reasoning that should have accompanied it however.

I did not see anywhere in your reply an explanation why, in the current crisis that is broadly hinging on and focusing on the only part of the UK that shares a land border with the EU, that shifting focus from where the problem is (at the border with the EU), to another part of the UK (that has no border with the EU), to create a hard border across the remaining unitary part of the UK (that shares no border with the EU), is a solution to the NI border problem.

It seems logical to me that the solution to the NI border problem lies in addressing the NI border problem.

That you think the only shared land border between the EU and UK is between the Republic of Ireland and Norther Ireland is perhaps part of problem of correct perception; the backstop addresses this and resolves it. The problem with the solution is that it failed repeatedly to be ratified in parliament and that is more accurately described as a Westminster problem.

fisherman wrote:
Context was if all the rational possible Brexits having been rejected, then fundies want the pure one, the only one, "the correct one".

That wasn't obvious to me and it not a common description for a comment on tribal purity tests.

fisherman wrote:I think you are misunderstanding my position on Brexit and how I voted in the referendum.

That's very possible, i have been known to misread positions.

Yah I think the Scottish Border Solution (SBS) doesn't have any legs anyhoo!

fisherman wrote::grin: Yah I think the Scottish Border Solution (SBS) doesn't have any legs anyhoo!

In Scotland we will at least get the choice.

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:The EFTA/EEA solution remains open. But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups.

My bold.

Not so. The red lines (current UK policy) - freedom of movement, paying into the EU budget, ECJ, etc.) prevent such a destination. But even were the red lines different and EFTA EEA was the desired destination there would have been no requirement to leave the EU and then apply to EFTA/EEA. A rational negotiation would have ensured a transition period enabled a seamless transition from the EU to the EEA.

ETA: Re-reading this, you are correct that the option is still open to us, and now from this point, almost certainly we would have to leave, then apply to rejoin. However, at the start of the process when A50 was triggered, it could have been different as I indicate above.

I'm rereading this and what's asserted at the last makes even less sense. Article 50 is a legal process to leave only. There is no provision for applying for EFTA/EEA membership. It really could not have been different.

I suppose that if your ultimate goal was to gain either EEA or EFTA (EFTA is very dubious; see Iceland) you would have to leave the EU, because they are agreements applicable to non-EU states. Just seems so unnecessary since the benefits of such agreements are already enjoyed by members.

Okay, we're still talking about my posts instead of your unresolved claim around the Scottish Border Solution (SBS) which drew me into the thread? Would be easier to deal with that fiction, than pursue this uncontroversial detail.

We are rather knawing over old bones here around a time that has long since disappeared, but my point was showing how different it would be for the UK in an A50 process, to that of Scotland in leaving the UK and then joining the EU, as per your claim below - that it would be the same process.

zerne wrote:But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups.

A50 wrote:In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

A rational negotiation would be amicable and clearly identify the destination before the divorce, in this case, the EEA.

Next trigger A 50.

During the 2 years of article 50 - Deal with the divorce, and then the framework of the future relationship around a transition to seamlessly leave the EU and join the EEA.

The transition period following A 50 would minimise the disruption shifting from one relationship to the other by maintaining the UK in the single market, though with no voting rights or whatever conditions are deemed necessary to maintain the smooth running of EU, followed by the necessary negotiations to facilitate entry to EFTA and the EEA.

If you want to split hairs and maintain that the process necessitates "leaving the EU", have it, the key difference being that for the UK the process would be carried out "from within" as a leaving member of the EU and a seamless transition, an option that was not open to Scotland.

zerne wrote:
I suppose that if your ultimate goal was to gain either EEA or EFTA (EFTA is very dubious; see Iceland) you would have to leave the EU, because they are agreements applicable to non-EU states. Just seems so unnecessary since the benefits of such agreements are already enjoyed by members.

It doesn't really matter that you don't see the point of EEA, that it existed as a possible relationship with the EU that minimised the worst impacts of Brexit, satisfies me, and it should be noted was the preferred destination for the First Minister.

True.

electricwhiteboy wrote:Scotland would have to be barking mad to let N.I anywhere near political decisions. Happily the weird cousins across the water, but I'd rather not have those jokers a closer seat at the table.

Edit: It may sound callus, but one of the appeals of Scotland going independent is not having the whole Irish question as a headache. You would have some Bitter Orange Order dildos on a parade occasionally and a bit of argy bargy on the usual wank sectarian lines for even less of fuck all of a reason now, and that would be it. Irish reunification is a generation away in real terms at my best guess.

The sectarianism doesn't magically disappear regardless of what happens, but i would rather deal with peaceful protests than risk a re-emergence of paramilitaries in Ireland. It's why i found May's deal with the DUP problematic.

Also, the DUP are not in power anymore. Arlene Fraser is not first minister of NI and the DUP are isolated in their support for leaving the EU. The nationalist parties won the most seats. The majority parties elected are in favour of remain and Sinn Fein's policies are progressive, they are hoping to pass legislation for same sex marriage to bring NI into line with it's neighbours as soon they can get the Assembly up and running.

fisherman wrote:We are rather knawing over old bones here around a time that has long since disappeared, but my point was showing how different it would be for the UK in an A50 process, to that of Scotland in leaving the UK and then joining the EU, as per your claim below - that it would be the same process.

zerne wrote:But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups.

I'm not claiming them as the same process, what i'm stating is that EU has stipulated grounds for entry to and leaving the EU. (Article's 49 and 50.)

fisherman wrote:

A50 wrote:In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

A rational negotiation would be amicable and clearly identify the destination before the divorce, in this case, the EEA.

Next trigger A 50.

During the 2 years of article 50 - Deal with the divorce, and then the framework of the future relationship around a transition to seamlessly leave the EU and join the EEA.

I don't think the bit you highlighted means what you think it means. If you want see an example of how that is implemented in practice i refer you to the Withdrawal Agreement:

HAVING REGARD to the Union and to the United Kingdom's common objective of a close future relationship, which will establish ambitious customs arrangements that build on the single customs territory provided for in this Protocol, in full respect of their respective legal orders,

The key word is future, the EU have regard for that, account for it, but incur no obligations as those are for the state that is leaving the EU to define and carry out (in the future).

fisherman wrote:The transition period following A 50 would minimise the disruption shifting from one relationship to the other by maintaining the UK in the single market, though with no voting rights or whatever conditions are deemed necessary to maintain the smooth running of EU, followed by the necessary negotiations to facilitate entry to EFTA and the EEA.

If you want to split hairs and maintain that the process necessitates "leaving the EU", have it, the key difference being that for the UK the process would be carried out "from within" as a leaving member of the EU and a seamless transition, an option that was not open to Scotland.

Cool story bro, unfortunately in addition to misapplying the terms you appear to have overlooked one very serious problem. The EEA/EFTA are groups. Trade groups. They trade with the EU.

Now, what might the EU have said repeatedly over the last 3 years about entering trade negotiations before the article process 50 is completed?

fisherman wrote:It doesn't really matter that you don't see the point of EEA, that it existed as a possible relationship with the EU that minimised the worst impacts of Brexit, satisfies me, and it should be noted was the preferred destination for the First Minister.

It's not that i don't see the point, but that as a member of the EU (currently) it has no value. Why lose all the benefits of EU membership in a bid to gain less? What indications do you have from EEA/EFTA members that UK membership is something they desire to endure?

fisherman wrote:Okay, we're still talking about my posts instead of your unresolved claim around the Scottish Border Solution (SBS) which drew me into the thread? Would be easier to deal with that fiction, than pursue this uncontroversial detail.

I'll respond to this in another post.

fisherman wrote:Okay, we're still talking about my posts instead of your unresolved claim around the Scottish Border Solution (SBS) which drew me into the thread? Would be easier to deal with that fiction, than pursue this uncontroversial detail.

What you proposed and insisted as possible was tested against reality and failed. The EU delineated what Article 50 entails;it is a legal process by which a member state becomes an non-member state. That is the purpose, function and intent behind its drafting. Being wrong about that is not an uncontroversial detail.

Now. Could you please explain what you consider my unresolved claim to be?

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:We are rather knawing over old bones here around a time that has long since disappeared, but my point was showing how different it would be for the UK in an A50 process, to that of Scotland in leaving the UK and then joining the EU, as per your claim below - that it would be the same process.

zerne wrote:But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups.

I'm not claiming them as the same process, what i'm stating is that EU has stipulated grounds for entry to and leaving the EU. (Article's 49 and 50.)

You say you are not describing them as the same process, but then confirm you were indeed making a claim that the EU has a process.

When you say,

But just as Scotland...means that the UK

you are drawing a link, and making a claim that one situation is the same as the other - a comparison. The only comparison that is coherent with what you wrote (though it is wrong) is the process, a process as you state, that the

EU has stipulated grounds for entry to and leaving the EU.

, which is why you were talking about Scotland's pathway to the EU being via independence.

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:The transition period following A 50 would minimise the disruption shifting from one relationship to the other by maintaining the UK in the single market, though with no voting rights or whatever conditions are deemed necessary to maintain the smooth running of EU, followed by the necessary negotiations to facilitate entry to EFTA and the EEA.

If you want to split hairs and maintain that the process necessitates "leaving the EU", have it, the key difference being that for the UK the process would be carried out "from within" as a leaving member of the EU and a seamless transition, an option that was not open to Scotland.

Cool story bro, unfortunately in addition to misapplying the terms you appear to have overlooked one very serious problem. The EEA/EFTA are groups. Trade groups. They trade with the EU.

Now, what might the EU have said repeatedly over the last 3 years about entering trade negotiations before the article process 50 is completed?

Seriously?

There is little doubt that a transition period would have been negotiable, the EU and ROI, in particular, would have wished for a smooth transition. Even the current WA which was a dog's dinner of a negotiation, has a transition period, despite it being to an unknown destination.

zerne wrote:
What you proposed and insisted as possible was tested against reality and failed. The EU delineated what Article 50 entails;it is a legal process by which a member state becomes an non-member state. That is the purpose, function and intent behind its drafting. Being wrong about that is not an uncontroversial detail.

Now. Could you please explain what you consider my unresolved claim to be?

I don't feel we are making much progress here Zerne, pointless even.

I'm happy to leave it where we agree to disagree.