Who exactly is going to be requiring the visas? Are you theorising that some government official is going to forbid his country’s border force from accepting British tourists because an agreement is in an interim status before final sign-off? Basically pissing off his country’s tourism sector because he wants to be a jobsworth? For the sake of disrupting the status quo for a few days before it reverts back to the same old rules? I can imagine some unionised French border guards working at the Eurostar doing something as a stunt, especially if it’s May Day. But I can’t foresee any government initiative from any EU country to stop money spending tourists from coming in. Making an official effort to generate bad will for the sake of a lack of a final stamp of approval is ludicrous.
According to the EU’s press release:
“The Commission would monitor the respect of the principle of reciprocity on a continuous basis and immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council of any developments which could endanger the respect of this principle.” So no, it’s not automatic. But it is something where I’d expect the EU government bodies to respond quickly and vigorously. The EU is serious when it comes to the concepts of “ever closer union” and European citizenship. A devisive act by an outsider, especially a petty act, would earn a strong rebuke.
If May was a States errr woman, she would revoke Article 50 and tell the politicians to suck on it.
It would save her countries future and maybe common sense will return. It will reset the clock at least.
If the British public still wants to committ suicide after that, then thats on them.
May is unfortunatley a mediocre headmistress rather thasnn a Stateswoman.
Not sure where you’re getting the former. The latter, aye.
So I’m missing a bit of context here - is this expected/common for countries outside the EU? Or is this a special concession to the UK?
Have all of you beeng seeing those Scotland commercials? They’ve been all over Twitter and Youtube for me. It seems like they’re pitching themselves to join the EU or something.
Based on the article it’s for people visiting for up to 90 days in a given 180 day period which isn’t uncommon between countries without immigration concerns. You would still need to show your passport to gain entry.
Here’s a list of countries whose citizens the EU grants similar privileges to: Visa policy of the Schengen Area - Wikipedia
It’s my understanding that hard Brexit, along with some of the other suggestions, would be likely to result in Northern Ireland de-facto remaining in the EU (i.e. no hard border with Ireland), and any other result that causes a hard border would be likely to cause widespread discontent which could also lead to unification. So, in my understanding, defacto unification, or actual unification being much more likely.
Okay, so very much “par for the course”. That makes good sense as a thing to do largely unilaterally.
I don’t get it. There’s no hard border at the moment but no one would say they are de facto unified. Whatever happens, they aren’t unified simply by an open border. They’re still going to have their own governments and laws.
I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that a reasonably likely outcome is Northern Ireland continuing with no hard border with Ireland, but a functional “hard” border would be instituted between NI and the rest of the UK, resulting in, functionally, northern Ireland having much closer ties (trade and movement) with Ireland than the rest of the UK. So even if NI technically remains in the UK, functionally it would interact with/trade/travel much more with Ireland than the UK.
Something I was wondering about regarding the indicative votes and the members bills: can Parliament pass a motion requiring that a vote is an unwhipped free vote? Basically, I was thinking about a situation where May was willing to give the Tories a free vote on a members bill, but also wanted to force Labour into a free vote. Could the government put forward a business motion proposing the following day’s order stating that a vote would take place and requiring (presuming the motion passed) that it be a free vote? Or is it solely the parties’ prerogative to decide whether to whip a vote or not?
Even if that all comes to pass, it is still quite wrong to call it reunification, de facto or otherwise. Do you think the UK is going to disband the Irish Guard or the Royal Irish Regiment?
That’s your take. That’s not the Ulster Unionists’ take. Which is why the DUP is dead set against “UKNI” and a customs border through the Irish Sea ever being a reality.
And it’s not just customs, it’s also border checks for people, right? Sure, getting legally employed would be different… But if there are no checkpoints across the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, that means anybody with freedom of the EU can cross to Ireland, and thence to Northern Ireland, at will.
Furthermore, if stuff bought and sold in NI were done according to EU regulations, but would get stopped at the ports when headed to Great Britain or the Channel Islands, AND VICE VERSA (e.g., clotted cream from Devon would need to be inspected to pass EU requirements before being allowed to ship to Belfast), it’s hard to argue that that is not treating NI as “UK only in name” from an everyday perspective.
It’s that precise possibility - even the hint of a possibility of a border in the Irish Sea - which has caused the DUP to blanket reject the agreement so far. Northern Ireland is light years away from reunification - the unionist majority will start a war before that happens.
Euopeans won’t necessarily be allowed to work in Northern Ireland. Taxes paid in Northern Ireland will go to the UK. UK laws will still be in effect. NI will still send members to the UK parliament.
I mean, yes, I see this would be a massive change in the status quo and most certainly why the DUP don’t like it at all. It may even lead to unification in the future. But it’s not reunification by any normal definition.
If there was reunification, then sure, why not? It isn’t military regiments that are stopping reunification. It’s the resident populace.
The post you just quoted has me saying it’s not reunification.
Why would they? The Army already happily accepts recruits from the Republic, and the RIR encourages it.
That’s fine, I’m not interested in semantics.
That scenario is supposedly acceptable to the EU government, but is unacceptable to the UK government and Northern Ireland unionists. Even so, some of the Brexiter opposers of May’s deal say that your listed outcome is the inevitable outcome of her withdrawal agreement. Basically, the Irish backstop in the withdrawal agreement states that the entire UK will remain in a customs union with the EU until a free trade agreement is negotiated, and that goods brought into Northern Ireland would have to meet EU standards. The idea that this would lead to a Northern Ireland division from the UK is based on two arguments that I’ve read. The first is that the goods’ standards requirement is already treating Northern Ireland different than Wales, England and Scotland, and would be a wedge for further separation. The second argument is that the customs union would eventually be intolerable to hard-right business interests who would agree to a sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK rather than stay in the customs union.
For more on the Irish backstop: Brexit: What are the backstop options? - BBC News
Beyond May’s deal, certainly the UK being on WTO trade terms with Ireland and the rest of the EU and the Good Friday Agreement are incompatible. Resolving that incompatibility would take a lot of creativity and some fudging of various laws. My view is that although I don’t want a WTO Brexit, a resolution of the two agreements would be achievable. Others are pessimistic.