Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Enzokk

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i agree the should have but didn't. but we are where we are.

Yes, we are where we are because people didn't understand the GFA and its implications on Brexit. Just because people didn't discuss it properly beforehand doesn't mean you can now try to dismiss it as a problem for a few farmers as you have done. You are doing exactly what the politicians did before the vote by minimizing the impact of the GFA and what it has done on the island for the past 20 years.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

again it's being overplayed. if people want to kill themselves that their personal choice.

ask any Police Chief anywhere and they ALWAYS look for more resources.

Do you want to cite any evidence or want to tell us of your expertise in this area so that we can understand why it is overblown?

Or do you want to read the articles and see he wasn't asking for more resources but relaying his opinion on what impact Brexit and having a border will have in Northern Ireland.

Enzokk

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

just seen Leo being interviewed. he's beginning to make Arlene look like a soft-touch.

Please link the interview or provide us some info on what he has said so we can discuss it and your point of view of the interview. Otherwise you are just posting and not adding to the thread.

Wheres Me Jumper?

tuxy wrote: »

So rip up the GFA because tories temporary forgot what they signed up to 20 years ago?

we have to move beyond the GFA. it served its purpose.
are we ever going to grow up as a country?

Seth Brundle

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Then you have towns like Blacklion/Belcoo, Beleek, Pettigo, Lifford/Strabane and even Derry itself (among countless others) that are straddling the border.

Derry doesn't straddle the border - it's almost alongside it but doesn't cross it.

Laois_Man

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

again it's being overplayed. if people want to kill themselves that their personal choice.

ask any Police Chief anywhere and they ALWAYS look for more resources.

If people want to kill other people, it should be their personal choice too eh?

By the way, the elephant in the room. Yanno all this money that the UK are going to save by being out of the EU? How much of it is left when you subtract in the fact that policing 250+ border crossings is going to cost about £4 Million per day?

joe40

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

as i suspected the reason many on the border are so adamant is they do not want the DUP to be seen to "get one over" on the nationalists.

this is more about tribal NI politics than what's best for these 2 islands & the EU.

That has to be the daftest comment on this forum.
The EU is not doing Ireland some massive favour by supporting the backstop arrangement. We do not have that much clout and 26 other sovereign countries are not that altruistic

The Northern Ireland border will be a land border between the EU and the UK, a major world economy. Collectively the EU are looking after their own interests.

The DUP would be irrelevant in this discussion if May had not called an election. This has nothing to do with them

FrancieBrady

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

again it's being overplayed. if people want to kill themselves that their personal choice.

Let the UK ate grass on this one. Why should my life be destabilised and massively inconvenienced because they wish to leave the EU?

I live on the border (about 500 yards) away and life would totally change if we go back to a physical one of any sort.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Laois_Man wrote: »

If people want to kill other people, it should be their personal choice too eh?

By the way, the elephant in the room. Yanno all this money that the UK are going to save by being out of the EU? How much of it is left when you subtract in the fact that policing 250+ border crossings is going to cost about £4 Million per day?

i am not recommending it you know.

Seth Brundle

joe40 wrote: »

The EU is not doing Ireland some massive favour by supporting the backstop arrangement. We do not have that much clout and 26 other sovereign countries are not that altruistic

I'd dispute the claim that we don't have much power - we have as much power as any other nation within the union.
The UK has as much power as us, as does Germany and France, etc.
However, the EU has rules which all members must follow which protects the union and it's trade. The EU is protecting itself by its actions. It just so happens that the protection involves us.
Furthermore, we possibly have an extra safety net here in that if the EU were to shaft Ireland, every other small country would reconsider their membership to a disloyal union.

Laois_Man

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i am not recommending it you know.

They won't do it then - because "Wheres Me Jumper" doesn't recommend it!

Hammer Archer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Derry doesn't straddle the border - it's almost alongside it but doesn't cross it.

OK I probably shouldn't have used the term "straddling the border" when it comes to Derry, but given that it's a city so close to the border, it'd have massive repercussions if WMJ's proposal was to come to pass.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Laois_Man wrote: »

They won't do it then - because "Wheres Me Jumper" doesn't recommend it!

personal choice

Wheres Me Jumper?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Derry doesn't straddle the border - it's almost alongside it but doesn't cross it.

see it's not just Brexiters who peddle misinformation.:o

Wheres Me Jumper?

Enzokk wrote: »

Please link the interview or provide us some info on what he has said so we can discuss it and your point of view of the interview. Otherwise you are just posting and not adding to the thread.

Sky News interview.

Seth Brundle

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

see it's not just Brexiters who peddle misinformation.:o

There is a difference between a slight error (like Hammer Archer's) and a massive feckin lie like Brexit!

tuxy

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

see it's not just Brexiters who peddle misinformation.:o

Depends on if he is talking about the city or the County.

Laois_Man

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

personal choice

Murder is a personal choice.....I don't actually respect your posts anymore at this point.


BTW, in addition to my point about border security costing that £4 Million per day. MP Kate Hoey actually said the Rep Ireland would be the ones paying for any hard border!! It's like Donald Trump re-incarnated before death...."We'll build a wall and make Ireland pay for it".

Wheres Me Jumper?

joe40 wrote: »

That has to be the daftest comment on this forum.
The EU is not doing Ireland some massive favour by supporting the backstop arrangement. We do not have that much clout and 26 other sovereign countries are not that altruistic

The Northern Ireland border will be a land border between the EU and the UK, a major world economy. Collectively the EU are looking after their own interests.

The DUP would be irrelevant in this discussion if May had not called an election. This has nothing to do with them

i disagree as i'm sure they do, and besides 17m people voted for Brexit. how many people live on the border does anybody know?

FrancieBrady

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i disagree as i'm sure they do, and besides 17m people voted for Brexit. how many people live on the border does anybody know?

The UK have twice agreed to a solution that allows them to Brexit. We as members of the EU have endorsed BOTH those agreements and the DUP have said NO.

That is a tiny minority party blocking the UK government doing a deal that that has been agreed TWICE.

Get off the blame the Irish border dweller horse there horse. :rolleyes:

tuxy

Does anyone that isn't a UKIP voter believe that the UK can go no deal on Brexit, have no border or tariffs under WTO between the UK and Ireland and also offer that same no tariffs to every other trading partner because of the non discrimination rule?

Professor Moriarty

People on the continent are very much of the same mind as Ireland. A little bit of 'It's your own fault" from Dutch PM Rutte:

"The deal is there because of the red lines the UK itself drew: no border in the Irish Sea, no membership of the customs union, no free movement of people."


Similarly from the Austrian Chancellor:

"It is difficult to judge, because many of the sceptics do not argue in a way that is really rational."


And some real politik from a German newspaper:

"...even if both sides want to remain friends, in the negotiations over Brexit they can be nothing but opponents. And regardless of how complex the discussions might be, at the core it’s a banal fact: the EU needs to ensure that no one is tempted to imitate Brexit. It cannot allow an exit from the EU to be something worthwhile. This is responsible politics. One might also say: self-protection ... and when held up against the confusion in London the union cuts quite a good figure."

ancapailldorcha

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Sky News interview.

Banned.

Hammer Archer

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

see it's not just Brexiters who peddle misinformation.:o

Any chance of answering my question? The fact that you're leaping to semantics says quite a bit.

Edit: Well there's no chance now

Laois_Man

tuxy wrote: »

Does anyone that isn't a UKIP voter believe that the UK can go no deal on Brexit, have no border or tariffs under WTO between the UK and Ireland and also offer that same no tariffs to every other trading partner because of the non discrimination rule?

Of course not!

Incidentally there are only 7 small countries in the world where the EU, including Britain, trades on WTO rules without supplementary bilateral agreements - which would all have to be re-agreed by the UK if leaving on WTO terms - leading to short and medium term chaos! These are the important little details that the likes of UKIP either don't know, or conveniently forget to mention

seamus

tuxy wrote: »

Does anyone that isn't a UKIP voter believe that the UK can go no deal on Brexit, have no border or tariffs under WTO between the UK and Ireland and also offer that same no tariffs to every other trading partner because of the non discrimination rule?

Most people don't understand it. They don't understand why you can't just leave it alone and not put a border up. And it's not an "Ireland is part of the UK" ignorance, more of a "look, it's grand, we all agree to just let stuff cross the border, and everything is hunky dory".

It's just one of the many things that made Brexit far too complex an issue to put to referendum.

Even if the UK said, "fvck it, no borders, no tariffs for anyone", the EU can't. Which means that the UK is flooded with zero tariff imports, but will have everything they attempt to export out, subjected to full tariffing. Economic armageddon.

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And some real politik from a German newspaper:

"...even if both sides want to remain friends, in the negotiations over Brexit they can be nothing but opponents. And regardless of how complex the discussions might be, at the core it’s a banal fact: the EU needs to ensure that no one is tempted to imitate Brexit. It cannot allow an exit from the EU to be something worthwhile. This is responsible politics. One might also say: self-protection ... and when held up against the confusion in London the union cuts quite a good figure."

Real Politik indeed, but it has to be recognized that being treated harshly pour encourager les autres is not in itself a reason not to leave the organisation that seeks to use a (soon to be ex) member as leverage.

If anything it would tend to confirm to those who voted leave that their instincts were correct.

Likewise Leo's - perhaps not so helpful - suggestion this afternoon that the UK might postpone or revoke Article 50 in order to avoid a no deal is likely to play into the hands of those that suggest that the EU & Ireland were playing politics all along, using the border to hobble the UK in it's democratic intention of leaving the EU.

Enzokk

kowtow wrote: »

Real Politik indeed, but it has to be recognized that being treated harshly pour encourager les autres is not in itself a reason not to leave the organisation that seeks to use a (soon to be ex) member as leverage.

If anything it would tend to confirm to those who voted leave that their instincts were correct.

Likewise Leo's - perhaps not so helpful - suggestion this afternoon that the UK might postpone or revoke Article 50 in order to avoid a no deal is likely to play into the hands of those that suggest that the EU & Ireland were playing politics all along, using the border to hobble the UK in it's democratic intention of leaving the EU.

Well if they haven't made sufficient plans for no-deal and there is no way to get a deal renegotiated, what other options are there? Now what he said may not be comfortable to hear but it doesn't mean it is wrong for Brexiters.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

Real Politik indeed, but it has to be recognized that being treated harshly pour encourager les autres is not in itself a reason not to leave the organisation that seeks to use a (soon to be ex) member as leverage.

If anything it would tend to confirm to those who voted leave that their instincts were correct.

Likewise Leo's - perhaps not so helpful - suggestion this afternoon that the UK might postpone or revoke Article 50 in order to avoid a no deal is likely to play into the hands of those that suggest that the EU & Ireland were playing politics all along, using the border to hobble the UK in it's democratic intention of leaving the EU.

Yeah. Let's remember that the UK decided to leave. Let's remember also that they triggered Article 50 without a plan of any sort. And they arbitrarily set red lines prior to negotiation. Let's remember that they can't agree amongst themselves as to what they want. If it's news to them that the EU couldn't let them leave on better terms than remaining then they are truly stupid. If those who voted leave want to blame the EU for their leaving, then they are deluding themselves.

Also, Leo's suggestion is obviously meant to be helpful. If that is deliberately twisted then that's the fault of those who twist his words. Enough of the tiptoeing around the likes of Mogg.

20silkcut

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. Let's remember that the UK decided to leave. Let's remember also that they triggered Article 50 without a plan of any sort. And they arbitrarily set red lines prior to negotiation. Let's remember that they can't agree amongst themselves as to what they want. If it's news to them that the EU couldn't let them leave on better terms than remaining then they are truly stupid. If those who voted leave want to blame the EU for their leaving, then they are deluding themselves.

Also, Leo's suggestion is obviously meant to be helpful. If that is deliberately twisted then that's the fault of those who twist his words. Enough of the tiptoeing around the likes of Mogg.

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

Enzokk

20silkcut wrote: »

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

Thank goodness all of the above is a minority view in the UK so you would assume that the adults in the room will get together to avoid the chaos. Then again, when you assume you make an....

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Thank goodness all of the above is a minority view in the UK so you would assume that the adults in the room will get together to avoid the chaos. Then again, when you assume you make an....

It would be easier to herd cats.

kowtow

20silkcut wrote: »

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

And - even if there is a second referendum which I personally doubt - I cannot see how it can be put without including the option for no deal.

The problem is that whilst seemingly nobody can find a majority for any particular way forward, there is only one option which has been explicitly rejected by the people in a vote (and also by Parliament) and that is the option to Remain.

To hold a referendum with an option to remain but without an option to leave on WTO terms (or no-deal) seems to me a difficult position to defend even if one agrees with the principle of a second referendum.

If it comes to a second referendum, in addition to the new slogan ("Tell them AGAIN") the statements and behavior of EU leaders including Leo in past weeks will form a major part of the message of the Leave campaign.

Kermit.de.frog

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

And - even if there is a second referendum which I personally doubt - I cannot see how it can be put without including the option for no deal.

The problem is that whilst seemingly nobody can find a majority for any particular way forward, there is only one option which has been explicitly rejected by the people in a vote (and also by Parliament) and that is the option to Remain.

To hold a referendum with an option to remain but without an option to leave on WTO terms (or no-deal) seems to me a difficult position to defend even if one agrees with the principle of a second referendum.

If it comes to a second referendum, in addition to the new slogan ("Tell them AGAIN") the statements and behavior of EU leaders including Leo in past weeks will form a major part of the message of the Leave campaign.

And if the British people choose to believe lies again then that's their problem.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

Did he tell them what to do?

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

You have the option to buy take-away food this evening for dinner. Is that me telling you what you should eat or telling you what options you have?

blanch152

Why have we two threads on the go?

Laois_Man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Did he tell them what to do?

No he didn't - He merely stated what their possible choices were for achieveing more time for the UK to decide what the hell it wants and on the matter of revoking or delaying article 50 said "If they don't wish to, I understand that and we will continue to work towards the ratification of the deal we've made"

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Once again Varadkar strays in to the territory of telling another parliament what it should do. Again he did it on Article 50.

His advisers need to ask him to stop doing that as it will only annoy people and politicians in Britain (rightly so).

Once again Kermit makes assumptions that are not true. Earlier today with had some nonsense from a Daily Express article which was absolute.

Professor Moriarty

Laois_Man wrote: »

No he didn't - He merely stated what their possible choices were for achieveing more time for the UK to decide what the hell it wants and on the matter of revoking or delaying article 50 said "If they don't wish to, I understand that and we will continue to work towards the ratification of the deal we've made"

Exactly. If it's okay for Merkel, Macron and Rutte to offer opinions (opinions that are much more forceful), then it's okay for our Taoiseach to make helpful suggestions when questioned by a reporter.

Laois_Man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. If it's okay for Merkel, Macron and Rutte to offer opinions (opinions that are much more forceful), then it's okay for our Taoiseach to make helpful suggestions when questioned by a reporter.

The problem is, Sky News keep playing it, but since the interview went live, they haven't played the full context of the statement once since.

Professor Moriarty

Laois_Man wrote: »

The problem is, Sky News keep playing it, but since the interview went live, they haven't played the full context of the statement once since.

Indeed. But at what stage do we stop tiptoeing around these liars? It's like being in a room with a three year old throwing constant tantrums. At some stage you have to say enough is enough.

kuro68k

None of it matters because May won't get anything meaningful out of the EU now. The vote on the deal will be lost, it's just a question of when.

She must be hoping something will happen to help her, desperately clinging on, all the time taking us closer to a hard brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Here's what Leo said:

It was a very good meeting, it was an opportunity for all of us to put forward ideas that might work, things that might be considered. It really wouldn’t be helpful to go into that sort of detail.
[The threat of a no-deal Brexit] can be withdrawn at any point by the UK should they chose to revoke article 50 or, if that’s a step too far, to extend it to allow us more time, and to allow Britain more time. That’s certainly an option, but my preferred option is to ratify the deal we have.
I don’t think we could agree to anything that would change the content to the treaty, the content to the withdrawal agreement. What we can say is the backstop is not on the table. It needs to be there for a reason.


It's basically a statement of fact couched in helpful and respectful language.

prawnsambo

blanch152 wrote: »

Why have we two threads on the go?

This one should be closed. Getting close to the thread limit. New thread is open.

briany

20silkcut wrote: »

But some of them think no deal is better than what they have.
Some people would love to see the borders close.
They’d also love to see the city of London in chaos.
They’d love to see fat cat business suffering.
They’d be excited by the prospect of chaos.
Anyone see the welsh guy saying that they survived blockades in ww2 ?
Is it 35-40% in favour of no deal in polling.
And the DUP would love a hard border and would be in ecstasy altogether if the British army redeployed in NI.

This is what your dealing with.

Let's not go nuts, here. Northern Ireland has enjoyed two decades of peace and growing prosperity since the GFA, making it a region that tourists and businesses no longer shy away from investing in. Is this not something that the normal people of NI wish very much to protect and continue? If the DUP messes with that; if they're seen to revel in a backslide to violence and polarisation, then their regressive attitude may cost them their position as the voice of NI Unionism.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's basically a statement of fact couched in helpful and respectful language.

The absolute rotter.

See, the brexiteers were right. They can't even leave without the EU trying to be all helpful. Take back our right to not have to listen to anyone but ourselves!

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

And - even if there is a second referendum which I personally doubt - I cannot see how it can be put without including the option for no deal.

The problem is that whilst seemingly nobody can find a majority for any particular way forward, there is only one option which has been explicitly rejected by the people in a vote (and also by Parliament) and that is the option to Remain.

This was true in 2016, and may still be true now (in the sense that in a further referendum "Remain" might still not attract a 50% vote.

But, in a rich irony, of the various options that are avalable or suggested - Remain, no-deal Brexit, Norway+, renegotiated Brexit under a different Tory, renegotiated Brexit under Labour, etc. - remain is probably the most popular. In a full menu referendum it would not secure a majority but it would probably secure more votes than any other option.

In this situation the only way to generate a majority for any option is to eliminate some options, and simply deny people the possibility of voting for them by not having them on the ballot paper. For example, some suggest a referendum between no-deal Brexit and May's deal brexit, forcing the electorate to choose one of these even though "remain" is almost certainly more popular than either of them. This is hard to defend on democratic grounds. It would also have the bizarre result that the form of Brexit that the UK would pursue would in fact be chosen by Remainers.

You could run a ranked-choice referendum in which you offered the full menu and invited voters to rank the options according to preference. You would them progressively elminate the least popular option and redistribute the votes for that option according to the next preference until one option secured more than 50% of the vote. This would be the option commanding the broadest assent across the electorate. In theory this is impeccably democratic, produces a certain result and does not split the leaver vote by offering a multiplicity of leave options but only one remain option. Unfortunately its a system which the British rejected in a referendum a few years back for their parliamentary elections, so they would probably view it with grave suspicion. It also invites voters to express a much more sophisticated and nuanced choide thant they are normally allowed to, and this could cause much confusion, and suspicion over the validity of the mandate obtained.

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's what Leo said:

It was a very good meeting, it was an opportunity for all of us to put forward ideas that might work, things that might be considered. It really wouldn’t be helpful to go into that sort of detail.
[The threat of a no-deal Brexit] can be withdrawn at any point by the UK should they chose to revoke article 50 or, if that’s a step too far, to extend it to allow us more time, and to allow Britain more time. That’s certainly an option, but my preferred option is to ratify the deal we have.
I don’t think we could agree to anything that would change the content to the treaty, the content to the withdrawal agreement. What we can say is the backstop is not on the table. It needs to be there for a reason.


It's basically a statement of fact couched in helpful and respectful language.

I think Leo and Simon have proven themselves as very capable politicians and diplomats in the last few years

But obviously from a Brexiteer's point of view - those uppity Paddies should know their place...

MrMusician18

Former commission president Barrosso made a few interesting tweets imploring flexibility from the EU wrt the backstop tonight.

I wonder what the game is here, is he putting feelers out, voicing genuine concern from those within the commission who have no voice, or just an irrelevant opining out aloud of a has been?