Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

An Ciarraioch

Rather timely tweet by Barnier with EEA politicians (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) - if May had agreed to remain in the European Economic Area after Brexit, it would have solved the vast majority of issues relating to the Border, and adhering as an independent member, rather than through EFTA, would have enabled bilateral agreements on customs:

http://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1064869237834031104

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Rather timely tweet by Barnier with EEA politicians (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) - if May had agreed to remain in the European Economic Area after Brexit, it would have solved the vast majority of issues relating to the Border, and adhering as an independent member, rather than through EFTA, would have enabled bilateral agreements on customs:

http://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1064869237834031104

was there not some concern from EEA members that the UK would have been too big for it?

or did I imagine that!?

An Ciarraioch

lawred2 wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Rather timely tweet by Barnier with EEA politicians (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) - if May had agreed to remain in the European Economic Area after Brexit, it would have solved the vast majority of issues relating to the Border, and adhering as an independent member, rather than through EFTA, would have enabled bilateral agreements on customs:

http://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1064869237834031104

was there not some concern from EEA members that the UK would have been too big for it?

or did I imagine that!?

Norway was saying that it would have been too big for EFTA, and in any case, that organisation's rules prohibit customs unions, so a bespoke independent status in the EEA would have allowed UK to meet whatever SM and CU requirements were needed, not just along the Border, but however London would want to trade with the rest of Europe.

Silent Running

Tell me how wrote: »

I think that there is trouble ahead. One way or another.

Either Brexit is cancelled or implemented as per current agreement which will lead to euro-sceptics claiming democracy was not adhered to and that this just shows how much power the EU has. Yes they might be small in number but they always were and look how it got to this.

If it goes ahead, then the economic fall out and acrimony from a younger impoverished restricted generation will persist.

Euro-Sceptics in not just the UK will use it as a warning of the strength and motivation of the union if the UK can be beaten in to submission. And, maybe some extremes on the other side will look to capatilise on such a "victory" if it could be called to that to try to increase power within the EU over national political strategies.

This has been clear to me for a while. Fudging Brexit will lead to further problems and will help neither the UK or EU.

A crash out exit is the only way to deal with the issue once and for all. Sure, there will be ramifications for the EU - obviously including us - and the UK. But these will ease with time.

Either the UK make a success of going out on their own or they don't. If they do, they'll be a valuable trading partner for the EU into the future. If they don't, they'll likely look to return to the EU as members at some point. Having been educated in a most practical way about life outside, they would probably be more committed to the European project and be more engaged.

One way or the other, the dragon of Euro-scepticism would be slain for good. This needs to happen IMHO.

breatheme

lawred2 wrote: »

was there not some concern from EEA members that the UK would have been too big for it?

or did I imagine that!?

EFTA and EEA are not the same thing.

The members of the EEA are the EU and EFTA member states. It may be possible for the UK to join the EEA without joining EFTA, or they could've reapplied for EFTA membership. The UK was actually a member of EFTA before they joined the EU.

robinph

seamus wrote: »

This is something I had called for, before. But a great point was made above that the sudden appearance of SF could cause some other parties to polarise immediately and vote the opposite way to SF on anything.

Rather than achieving an actual collapse, instead you might get some other cobbled together coalition such as the Lib Dems or SNP joining with the Tories on an "Anyone but the terrorists" agenda.

Sinn Fein are probably about as well-known in Westminster as the DUP, so it wouldn't take very much for the media and party spokespeople to convince the country that making a deal with anyone is better than letting Sinn Féin change the balance of power.

There can be no doubt it would be an enormous disruption in any case. But a rather unpredictable one, IMO.

Martin McGuinness had been doing a great job of changing the opinion of Sinn Fein to the rest of the UK and despite having been properly messed up in a dodgy past was an acceptable voice for them outside of NI. They don't have anyone else who could be the nice cuddly face of SF in Westminster now though even if there are people who don't have the baggage they are all unknowns.

BonnieSituation

oscarBravo wrote: »

They don't have an MP.

You do know that SF MPs do constituency work don't ya?

Turning up to Westminster affects that not a jot.

An Ciarraioch

Tom Newton Dunn reports that the UK Cabinet is discussing Max Fac again:

http://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1064867435516518400

BonnieSituation

Mortelaro wrote: »

Regarding SF in Westminster, it would only be for six months and they wouldn't lose many votes by saying we're taking our seats for 6 months to frustrate Brexit in the NATIONAL interest of Ireland
They should be thinking outside the box on this one

They would absolutely lose votes.

One of the reasons people vote for them rather than the SDLP is BECAUSE of them being abstentionist.

How many ways can the same thing be phrased?

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tom Newton Dunn reports that the UK Cabinet is discussing Max Fac again:

http://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1064867435516518400

What is wrong with them?

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tom Newton Dunn reports that the UK Cabinet is discussing Max Fac again:

http://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1064867435516518400

and around and around we go

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

and around and around we go

Around and round they go. I don't know why, but as long as they are enjoying themselves.

The EU already ruled that nonsense out.

serfboard

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tom Newton Dunn reports that the UK Cabinet is discussing Max Fac again

Like a lot of other stories that the British press have been "reporting" (a.k.a being spoon-fed propaganda), I'm guessing that this is meant for domestic consumption only.

Mortelaro

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They would absolutely lose votes.

One of the reasons people vote for them rather than the SDLP is BECAUSE of them being abstentionist.

How many ways can the same thing be phrased?

Their voters must be as daft as the DUP voters then in terms of not knowing whats good for them!
Anyone with a bit of logic could see the merits of a temporary entry
A wrecking ball strategy

BonnieSituation

serfboard wrote: »

Like a lot of other stories that the British press have been "reporting" (a.k.a being spoon-fed propaganda), I'm guessing that this is meant for domestic consumption only.

Why though?

They have an agreement.

----

I'm not being naïve. I just can't get my head around it.

Like, you know when something is so profoundly stupid your brain almost leaves your body.

breatheme

I say, let them have their discussion. Max Fac (or Mad Fac as I keep Freudian-slipping into calling it) doesn't exist yet. If it ever does, it probably won't work. If it works, then we can review the backstop. As of now, the UK isn't free to end the backstop unilaterally just because they came up with a half-assed solution.

From what I've read, even the most optimist publications are "it would reduce customs checks to a minimum". A minimum of customs checks are still customs checks. So they're just wasting their time.

Mortelaro

Hurrache wrote: »

Many remainers and unionists outraged on Twitter by Boulton's apparent lack of impartiality and ability to listen to answers during that interview, with some even stretching to claim Wilson was brilliant.

Brexit sure does bring out the delusional Trumpian/Putinesque spin
What annoyed me about the interview, the only thing that annoyed me about it was Wilson wasn't challenged on WHY Vradakar said there'll be no hard border
He wasn't talking about no hard border on crash out
He meant none because the transition would be lengthened untill a trade deal wasdone
Sammy is fond of hill of beans ,straw clutching arguments because the bogey man Catholic free state is now more liberal and economically more successful than Ulster
That frightens hard line unionists
Arguing against the special and very advantageous position the current deal puts NI in,is symptomatic of that fear

Imreoir2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why though?

They have an agreement.

----

I'm not being naïve. I just can't get my head around it.

Like, you know when something is so profoundly stupid your brain almost leaves your body.

I'm guessing the UK government are trying to talk up the perception that the WA is only a small and not so very important part of the process of reaching a deal with the EU. They are talking about these alternative options to give the impression that what ever your particular impression of what Brexit means, the WA is not the end of the road, you can still ultimatly get your way in the Future Relationship Treaty.

It's all rather meaningless and probably won't make much difference but it seems to me to be an effort at de-dramatising the WA and hopefully lessening the opposition to getting the WA through Parliament.

BonnieSituation

Mortelaro wrote: »

Their voters must be as daft as the DUP voters then in terms of not knowing whats good for them!
Anyone with a bit of logic could see the merits of a temporary entry
A wrecking ball strategy

Are you for real?

SF have campaigned on an abstentionist policy for a century. They cannot be held responsible for the British electorate having a meltdown.

Maybe just, maybe this time "it wuz the Brits dat dun it" and might have to accept responsibility for the mire they find themselves in.

I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with what I and others state above wrt the moot effect - on commons arithmetic - of them taking their seats.

Mortelaro

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Are you for real?

SF have campaigned on an abstentionist policy for a century. They cannot be held responsible for the British electorate having a meltdown.

Maybe just, maybe this time "it wuz the Brits dat dun it" and might have to accept responsibility for the mire they find themselves in.

I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with what I and others state above wrt the moot effect - on commons arithmetic - of them taking their seats.

I am for real
The usual suspects might rile up if SF temporarily took seats but just as there's a 'really would prefer to remain but how do we get there' majority in the commons
There's also a majority who respect the GFA in my humble opinion
Many moons have passed,enough to lighten the mood on most mps being worried about SF's past
Extraordinary times,extraordinary measures

An Ciarraioch

SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Plaid and Greens have held a joint meeting - still unlikely Labour will move towards Single Market immediately, but greater likelihood of a joint position faced with No Deal.

BonnieSituation

Mortelaro wrote: »

I am for real
The usual suspects might rile up if SF temporarily took seats but just as there's a 'really would prefer to remain but how do we get there' majority in the commons
There's also a majority who respect the GFA in my humble opinion
Many moons have passed,enough to lighten the mood on most mps being worried about SF's past
Extraordinary times,extraordinary measures

But there's already a majority for remain in the commons, the issue isn't the SF seats.

Theyre not exactly the IPP.

As well as that, I don't see where your current optimism for British politicians suddenly becoming reasonable stems from.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But there's already a majority for remain in the commons, the issue isn't the SF seats.

Theyre not exactly the IPP.

If SF want to stay out, that's their business.

What it does highlight is their complete powerlessness and lack of influence at the moment.

Out of government in the North.
Out of government in the South.
Out of parliament in the UK.
Not even biggest opposition party in the South.

They are a footnote in any discussion of Brexit, the biggest issue on this island this century.

Akrasia

Nody wrote: »

And this is the "we got 80 or more members" group that she's been trying to placate the whole time who can't even get 48 letters in. May if anything should take that as a confidence vote and simply ignore that wing of the party and push her own policies now.

She Can't though because her majority in the HOC is minus 10 so she'd have to convince a significant number of 3rd party MPs to vote with her to compensate for the rebels in her party and the DUP

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

If SF want to stay out, that's their business.

What it does highlight is their complete powerlessness and lack of influence at the moment.

Out of government in the North.
Out of government in the South.
Out of parliament in the UK.
Not even biggest opposition party in the South.

They are a footnote in any discussion of Brexit, the biggest issue on this island this century.

When your enemy is making a mistake you don't interrupt them.

Akrasia

seamus wrote: »

This is something I had called for, before. But a great point was made above that the sudden appearance of SF could cause some other parties to polarise immediately and vote the opposite way to SF on anything.

Rather than achieving an actual collapse, instead you might get some other cobbled together coalition such as the Lib Dems or SNP joining with the Tories on an "Anyone but the terrorists" agenda.

Sinn Fein are probably about as well-known in Westminster as the DUP, so it wouldn't take very much for the media and party spokespeople to convince the country that making a deal with anyone is better than letting Sinn F change the balance of power.

There can be no doubt it would be an enormous disruption in any case. But a rather unpredictable one, IMO.

If the state of politics is this bad, that whole political movements would emerge just to vote the opposite of what Sinn Fein want, then there truly is no hope for the UK.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

If SF want to stay out, that's their business.

What it does highlight is their complete powerlessness and lack of influence at the moment.

Out of government in the North.
Out of government in the South.
Out of parliament in the UK.
Not even biggest opposition party in the South.

They are a footnote in any discussion of Brexit, the biggest issue on this island this century.

It's also the business of their constituents who voted for them not to take up their Westminster seats.

Blanch, you'd be the first to criticise SF for flip flopping and taking their seats. So hop off the horse.

Mc Love

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's also the business of their constituents who voted for them not to take up their Westminster seats.

Blanch, you'd be the first to criticise SF for flip flopping and taking their seats. So hop off the horse.

How could you vote for a party that wont even take their seats in parliament, might as well not vote.

breatheme

Mc Love wrote: »

How could you vote for a party that wont even take their seats in parliament, might as well not vote.

Because you want to vote for a party that won't take up its seat.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's also the business of their constituents who voted for them not to take up their Westminster seats.

Blanch, you'd be the first to criticise SF for flip flopping and taking their seats. So hop off the horse.

Not at all, I would ask them why they didn't do it sooner.