Anyone else worry that we could end up with civil war and the break up of the UK?

[KennDodd]

All because of that wretched unnecessary referendum.

A number of surveys have shown just how many people think violence and the break up of the UK is a price worth paying for Brexit (or no Brexit). We've already got increased tensions in both NI and Scotland. Brexit has all the far right racist groups on their side, so quick to violence, Remain has the young on its side, so again quick to violence. Politicians and the media seem to be intent on only raising the temperature further.

This isn't something that keeps me awake at night or anything but I think people are naive if they think it could never happen here. I suppose one way to avoid it would be if Brexit did happen and the sunlit uplands and all the Brexit promises actually happened. I don't know anyone (Leave or Remain) who believes everything will suddenly get a lot better anymore though. Even if it did I still can't see any solution for the border in Ireland.

Personally I don't think there will be civil war or mass riots outside of NI.

I observe quite a few 'hard Leaver' accounts on Twitter. Ones that talk about rioting and violence. From observing them over time they show no evidence of being anything other than talk, they have jobs and while happy to talk the talk on Twitter are IMO unlikely to risk their lifestyles to kick off.

I agree with PP that Waxy Lemon and some of his thugs might kick off but it will be c.100 people and will be easily contained.

NI is a different kettle of fish - I won't try and anticipate how that might play out. As things stand Unionists appear to be less ready to kick off at the moment than the New IRA or whatever they call themselves now. Given we're moving closer to a break up of the Union the New IRA won't have anything to kick off about theoretically but any road to unification could be pretty bumpy

...and I grew up in Stoke. Pretty rough and one of the highest Leave areas.

I'm used to violence - fights, brawls, mini-riots all pretty commonplace there. I still don't think there will be any major trouble over Brexit.

Football they get emotional about, EDL type race war stuff sure....but with Brexit I just don't see the specific type of people who are violent and the type of people to get really emotional about Brexit overlapping that much.

I do think that there is a strong "pro-white" movement that has been an undercurrent of Brexit and has been stirred up by Brexit and Trump and that could well lead to more EDL type violence but not over Brexit itself.

clav - I'm keen to hear how 'the Remain bubble' is 'comforting'?

Since June 24th 2016 it's been one long, scary, anxiety producing slog.

It really hasn't been 'comforting'.

So We can look forward to the country exploding on Halloween, according to Frawnswarh.

i doubt his constituency of rayleigh will- its full of retired elderly wealthy cons brexiteers and their mostly remain supporting working dc.
i wonder where he is thinking about.

The EU also has a moral responsibilty to ensure they support this

Didn’t think EU were a signatory to the GFA?

Therefore, if the UK or Ireland leave the EU they have a moral and legal responsibility to do so in a way that does not threaten the GFA

It’s easy and called not installing a border. Remember WTO has stated that they won’t require either Ireland or the UK to install a border in the event of no deal. A possibility that was sanctioned by all EU members in 2009.

Sticking point is EU law that requires Ireland to install a border. Explains why EU stated that NI must remain in the customs union. They know if they force Ireland to install a border it will not be UK that faces potential wrath from the US or anyone else, but the EU.

The NI only backstop works for as a way for both UK to leave the EU and avoid border issues, but by sounds like Johnson’s proposal is going to be rejected?

If all WAs are rejected how can a deal be made?

The EU also has a moral responsibilty to ensure they support this
Didn’t think EU were a signatory to the GFA?
FFS. They have a moral responsibility to ensure that an international treaty is observed and upheld.

They have a moral responsibility to ensure that an international treaty is observed and upheld

So EU won’t tell Ireland to install border control if EU and UK can’t agree a deal? Thought EU law required borders between EU and non EU countries to protect the single market? If not why are there borders in Eastern Europe?

Reason EU has stated that NI must remain in EU customs union is that they know they will be blamed if a border is installed between NI and Ireland.

@MysteryTripAgain - as usual, you are being completely disingenuous.

The EU have pushed for a deal that ensures there is a frictionless border in Ireland. This fulfils their moral obligation while also protecting the pillars of the EU.

Reason EU has stated that NI must remain in EU customs union is that they know they will be blamed if a border is installed between NI and Ireland.

I can assure you that is not where blame will be placed. Anyone with any level of understanding of what is going on, and is not completely deluded, knows that a hard border would be the fault of the UK.

Remember WTO has stated that they won’t require either Ireland or the UK to install a border in the event of no deal. A possibility that was sanctioned by all EU members in 2009.

Except for the minor detail of most favoured nation. So the UK would be happy to have no borders at all? How is that taking back control?

Didn’t think EU were a signatory to the GFA?

Hence moral, rather than legal, responsibility.

You really need to ask for a new 50c army guidebook. Your arguments are very poor and really make you look like you haven't a clue.

It’s easy and called not installing a border. Remember WTO has stated that they won’t require either Ireland or the UK to install a border in the event of no deal. A possibility that was sanctioned by all EU members in 2009.

Taking back control of our borders. Not.

I can assure you that is not where blame will be placed. Anyone with any level of understanding of what is going on, and is not completely deluded, knows that a hard border would be the fault of the UK

How? Remember that if a member leaves the EU without a deal all EU laws and treaties between the EU and the member who has left cease to exist.

This is what was overlooked when all EU members sanctioned no deal as a possible outcome when they signed article 50 in 2009. Neither Ireland nor the UK recognised the implications of either leaving without a deal when they signed Article 50 eleven years after GFA was passed.

What the EU instructs it’s members to do to ensure compliance with EU laws has nothing to do with non EU countries. A no deal could result in two borders. One installed by Ireland like those in Eastern Europe and a WTO border in Northern Ireland. However, WTO is vague with respect to borders. More significantly WTO has stated that under WTO regulations neither Ireland nor the UK are required to install hard borders.

Problem for Ireland is that WTO has no jurisdiction over EU border laws. So they are obliged by EU law to install a border between themselves and Northern Ireland.

If the suggestion to keep NI in the EU customs union fixes everything why not go for it? Still think that there are MPs who will vote against any proposal as they think it cancels Brexit. They seem to forget that such action increases the likelihood of a no deal.

How?

Because the UK chose to introduce red lines that are contrary to their obligations under the GFA. The EU obviously cannot force the UK to comply with their obligations but they can refuse to collude with them in a deal that would break the GFA.

Remember that if a member leaves the EU without a deal all EU laws and treaties between the EU and the member who has left cease to exist.

And the sky is blue, a statement that has as much relevance as yours.

Because the UK chose to introduce red lines that are contrary to their obligations under the GFA

Red lines were necessary to respect the vote to leave. However, I would agree that not all of the red lines were necessary.

Leaving the current customs union and single market were necessary to allow UK to make trade deals with non EU countries without hinderance from EU. Remember that 54% of UK exports are to non EU countries and a trade surplus of £44 billion with non EU countries. Likewise UK has an ever increasing trade deficit with the EU since 1999 and current stands at £64 Billion. Not a good deal for the UK considering it is the third largest donor to the EU and purchases from the EU make up 8% (1/12 of EU trade even though there are 28 EU members)

Germany is the largest donor to the EU, but has a massive trade surplus with other EU members that easily outweigh their contributions. So Germany is delighted with the EU.

France is the second largest donor to the EU. They break even with EU.

If UK was in the same position as; France, Germany or one of the 18 EU members that are net receivers of money from the EU, I too would be a remain supporter.

The red lines about freedom of movement is one I would drop. UK, and any other EU member, can introduce legislation that requires persons to meet criteria before being allowed entry into UK. Even before the referendum UK was tightening regulations for Immigration. People either had to have a job or means of supporting themselves.

The disconnect between GFA and Article 50 is the issue to be resolved. In pure legal terms one, or both, would be modified to ensure alignment. However, that ship has long sailed as GFA was passed in 1998 and Article 50 was passed in 2009 and subsequently been invoked.

So one has to bend. As Article 50 was produced 11 years after the GFA it would be logical and fair to bend Article 50 (that is my view based on Arbitration experience).

GFA has been proven to have achieved its goal of peace on the island of Ireland. Whereas Brexit is an unknown that has no history and the outcome has yet to be seen. Hence further argument for bending Article 50 (again that is my view based on Arbitration experience).

but they can refuse to collude with them in a deal that would break the GFA

If UK MPs buy into EU suggestion that NI remains in the EU customs union there are no issues with GFA. I support the EU suggestion, but will it get past;

DUP
ERG
SNP
Labour

And the sky is blue

Does that include the period between sunset and sunrise? When walking back from Healy Macs (a popular Irish bar) to my apartment at 11pm last night the sky was black with a few white specks.

"Does that include the period between sunset and sunrise? When walking back from Healy Macs (a popular Irish bar) to my apartment at 11pm last night the sky was black with a few white specks."

"The sky is blue" is not grammatically equivalent to "the sky is always blue everywhere".

Red lines were necessary to respect the vote to leave.

Given all the talk pre-referendum was about a very soft brexit that would be similar to a Norway plus model, the red lines were not necessary to honour the vote. It was only post-2016 that all this hard brexit talk started.

The disconnect between GFA and Article 50 is the issue to be resolved.

Very simply dealt with, provided both parties exhibit integrity. The problem here is that the UK has not exhibited integrity.

The problem here is that the UK has not exhibited integrity

The current UK government of Eton tax dodgers.

Maybe the next one will. Pigs may fly but it's possible we'll have a different flavour of government on 13 December.

The problem here is that the UK has not exhibited integrity

It would be more accurate to say that MPs have rejected proposals that allow UK to leave EU and at same time not interfere with the GFA.

I was not in favour of Mays WA, but Johnson’s suggestion of checks away from the invisible border seemed an improvement. EU suggestion that NI remains in EU customs seems to go further by avoiding the checks away from the border.

Not sure if EU can force UK to allow one member state to remain in the EU customs union whilst the other three leave, but it seems to be the optimum solution.

It would be more accurate to say that MPs have rejected proposals that allow UK to leave EU and at same time not interfere with the GFA.

Nope. Acting in a manner that contravenes your obligations under an international peace treaty shows a distinct lack of integrity, both personally and collectively.

Not sure if EU can force UK to allow one member state to remain in the EU customs union whilst the other three leave, but it seems to be the optimum solution.

Of course they can't. However, they can refuse to collude in agreeing a deal that contravenes an international peace treaty to which one of their members is a party. The UK then needs to decide whether they want to deal with the shitfest that is no deal (bearing in mind that any trade agreement down the road will still require an agreement that satisfies the EU red lines which protect Ireland) or come up with a way forward that allows them to leave while still complying with their obligations under an international peace treaty.

Nope. Acting in a manner that contravenes your obligations under an international peace treaty shows a distinct lack of integrity, both personally and collectively

Best way to avoid a no deal is to make a deal. For that to happen a withdrawal agreement has to be passed. May's WA rejected three times. Sounds like Johnson's suggestion of limited checks away from the border is going to be rejected too?

So that leaves EU suggestion of NI shall remain in the EU customs union. However, will that get through parliament? If those MPs who want brexit to be cancelled completely and reject all suggested WA proposals in the hope brexit is cancelled, are they not increasing the likelihood of a no deal? That was the point being made.

No deal is damaging all round in the following reverse order:

EU least affected in the short term as UK represents 8% of EU trade. Yes they will have lost their third largest donor, but the 27 remaining members can still trade among themselves.

UK second least affected in the short term as transition to WTO to trade with the EU will be chaotic.

Island of Ireland most affected in the short term due to possible return to troubles and impact on the agricultural trade between North and South. However, I seem to remember the EU saying they would provide help to Ireland, but will UK government provide similar help to NI?

There will also be the blame game to tackle as all affected parties will say it is everyone else's fault.

Even if a deal is made it is only the beginning. Many years of formalities to close out. Ten years minimum would be my guess.

Sounds like Johnson's suggestion of limited checks away from the border is going to be rejected too?

Have you actually looked at the border? Johnson's suggestion of effectively having 2 borders several miles away from the border is firstly, totally nonsensical - if it looks like a duck etc, and secondly would effectively cut parts of the republic off, stranding them in the north.

No it's a ridiculous suggestion. The Scots (or many of them) have wanted to break up the UK for longer than Brexit existed. U.K. parliaments are devolved anyway, and so far haven't mentioned wishing to become independent (wales and NI that is).

Just more silly scaremongering

Just more silly scaremongering

The head of the PSNI doesn't seem to think the threat of violence is scaremongering.

Inevitable.

Break up of the U.K, yes. Civil war - when 60%+ of the population is overweight or obese - realistically no.