Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Options
1457910321

Comments

  • Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Before the vote took place, I was called selfish by an English guy for even mentioning the border and the shltshow it would cause if Brexit passed. He just didn't care.

    It's not just ignorance of it being an issue. It's just an alien thing where the North feels as far away as the Falklands. Even my Remainer English friends don't give a toss about it. As I've always said, Unionists are a nice guy chasing a girl who doesn't even know he exists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,499 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Firblog wrote: »
    Most didn't want it when the vote took place is true, but wouldn't be so sure that those unionist who voted to remain in the EU would still hold that view if they were going to be edged out of the union with the UK to stay in the EU.
    But they're not being "edged out of the Union with the UK to stay in the EU".

    The backstop does not take NI out of the Union. With the backstop in place, NI will still be part of the UK. Everyone born in NI will still be a British Citizen from birth. They will still elect MPs to Westminster and not TDs to Leinster House, and Westminster, not Leinster House, will have the power to make laws that apply in NI.

    This "EU is trying to annex NI!" is a ridiculous overdramatisation put about by hardline Brexiters (who as a class are not noted for their grasp of constitutional and political realities) and by right-wing Unionists who hate the GFA and hope to undermine it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    A deal has been done regarding Gibraltar and Akrotiri so why can't a similar deal be done for NI??

    The EU does not have an issue with Gibraltar dealing directly with Spain or Akrotiri dealing directly with Cyprus so what is the problem with an Irish/UK deal on the border?

    Yes they are overseas territories but they are no different from NI in that there are huge amounts of goods and people crossing the borders daily.

    People forget that the UK has 3 land borders with the EU not just the one.

    Its almost as if the EU want a no deal exit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,499 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    A deal has been done regarding Gibraltar and Akrotiri so why can't a similar deal be done for NI??

    The EU does not have an issue with Gibraltar dealing directly with Spain or Akrotiri dealing directly with Cyprus so what is the problem with an Irish/UK deal on the border?

    Yes they are overseas territories but they are no different from NI in that there are huge amounts of goods and people crossing the borders daily.

    People forget that the UK has 3 land borders with the EU not just the one.

    Its almost as if the EU want a no deal exit.
    It's almost as if Brexiters don't understand that the UK has guaranteed no hard border in Ireland, and the EU takes this guarantee seriously and expects it to be delivered. Any deal must give effect to this guarantee.

    The Gibraltar deal doesn't mean no hard border in Gibraltar. The Akrotiri deal doesn't mean no hard border in Cyprus. So neither of those deals are fit for purpose in Ireland. (Plus the Akrotiri deal would be fundamentally uncacceptable to Ulster Unionists - it's much, much worse, from their point of view, than the backstop.)

    And, for the record, the UK has one land border with the EU. Neither Gibraltar nor Akrotiri are part of the UK.

    PS: Worth pointing out that the protocols on Gibraltar and Akrotiri are both annexes to the Withdrawal Agreement. And, of course, there is no Withdrawal Agreement unless the UK accepts a backstop on the terms agreed last December, and again last March. So the statement that "a deal has been done regarding Gibraltar and Akrotiri" has to be qualified; a deal has been done conditionally on a deal being done on the backstop.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,329 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Firblog wrote: »
    Surely using 'well it was Britain that's leaving' as an argument for trying to shaft UK is the most ridiculous position ever. Lets not forget a no deal Brexit will be dam near catastrophic for us. Then again it will be no surprise if the EU blithely sacrifices our economy for what they see as the greater EU good..

    We are the EU


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,921 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Ah a new poster who sits at the alter of the EU are punishing the UK. And the UK should suffer no ill effects of taking the most idiotically economic and political choice any country has ever taken...


    So let me summise.

    Ireland should leave the EU to assist Britians problem.

    The EU should stop being mean to Britian and give them everything they want to be successful because the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.


    I think that's quite the grasp of it, without the eating around the edges multiple posts on offer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,499 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Firblog wrote: »
    Most didn't want it when the vote took place is true, but wouldn't be so sure that those unionist who voted to remain in the EU would still hold that view if they were going to be edged out of the union with the UK to stay in the EU.
    Obviously what NI "Remain" voters voted for in 2016 was for the whole of the UK to remain in the European Union, not just just NI. And we can't assume that they would wish NI to remain in the EU without GB; any more than we can assume that they wouldn't. Either assumption is just conjecture.

    Still, it's fair enough to assume that, if they agree that NI has to leave the EU with the rest of the UK, they would prefer a Brexit conducted in a way that takes account of, and seeks to avert, the very harms that they feared when they chose to vote "Remain". We know that Northern Ireland does not want a hard border with the Republic. We also know that NI does not want increased barriers to trade with GB. But the May government has gone out of its way, through unforced choices made after the referendum, to ensure that NI must suffer at least one of these evils, and quite possibly both.

    It would be foolish to imagine that NI Remain voters - the majority, remember - haven't noticed this. And it would be more foolish to imagine that, if asked now to choose the lesser of two evils, they wouldn't regard that as the most hypocritical exercise in blame shifting by a Westminster government that has boxed them into this unpleasant corner because, fundamentally, it doesn't give a stuff about what they want, or about what is in their interests.

    "Here's two ends of a stick. We already know you don't want either end. Knowing that, we've gone out of our way to make both ends needlessly sh!tty. Now, which one would you like? Bend over!"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 808 ✭✭✭Angry bird


    This Tory government have demonstrated repeatedly that they're not to be trusted. So wisely the deal last December included a backstop, which was re-affirmed in March.

    When dealing with untrustworthy types, you seek guarantees, up front, of the binding sort. Then you get to talk about the cheese.

    It is for the UK to decide what it wants, we all wish they'd decide and stop the internal in fighting and negotiating with themselves. The EU is playing the long game and if there's a no deal with this government, perhaps the next one would be more amenable to sign up, after first hand experience of what no deal means in reality.

    The EU holds the cards, our interests do not lie with sorting out the UKs problems.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Firblog wrote: »
    Surely using 'well it was Britain that's leaving' as an argument for trying to shaft UK is the most ridiculous position ever.


    We are not trying to shaft the UK. Ireland was tipping along quite happily with the GFA in place, peace on the streets for 20 years.


    The UK threatening to leave the EU is trying to shaft Ireland, and we (and the EU on our behalf) are saying well, OK, that's allowed in the treaties, but if you do it, you leave with nothing.


    Do something to avoid shafting Ireland, and you get a FTA.


    And the UK already signed up last December, in writing, to the backstop that they now say is unacceptable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Firblog wrote: »
    charlie14 wrote: »
    Well it was Britain that voted to leave the EU, not the EU that voted to leave Britain so I can see why the EU would wish to get the best deal possible for the remaining members.

    Surely using 'well it was Britain that's leaving' as an argument for trying to shaft UK is the most ridiculous position ever. Lets not forget a no deal Brexit will be dam near catastrophic for us. Then again it will be no surprise if the EU blithely sacrifices our economy for what they see as the greater EU good..

    The shafting that is going on is by the UK. They voted to leave the EU with scant consideration of the ramifications on any part of themselves. They have negotiated not on the basis of wanting to leave but on the basis of having all of the benefits but none of the obligations. That is not wanting to leave. That is being psychopathically selfish. The impact of their decision in their neighbours has not formed any part of their thinking either. The EU's position mitigates issues for NI. That they are even negotiating at all mitigates the impact on the UK which can afford a crash out not at all.

    Against that UK government figures are already backtracking on agreements in principle. We are here now because the UK is demonstrating a lack of faith.

    At no point has the UK thought about anyone else's considerations. England does not even care about the considerations of UK constituent nations like Scotland.

    So your thought experiment is wasted. Every effort the EU makes to facilitate the UK has been spat back. We have been there, done the obliging, and now we have to look after our interests. If that means NI gets special treatment and benefits fine. But we are here not because of Ireland or Brussels.

    We are here because of the UK. Their union is monumentally at risk because of Brexit. Brexit changes the perspectives for Scitland and NI. Wales less so although I have heard Welsh people bitterly blame the numbers of English people living in certain parts of Wales for tipping Wales in support of Brexit. Even so, the Brexit result was carried primarily in England. And the way Britain has negotiated has not taken the considerations of NI and Scotland into account. You may scream about the vote being an all UK one. But the negotiations have not been done on an all UK basis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    It amazes me how ignorant even UK politicians are on this whole thing. I don't know if this has been posted before but here is an MP who thinks UK citizens are entitled to Irish passports

    https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1051624600600289281

    How can someone be expected to vote on a deal if they still don't know the basics of our current relationship with the EU? You'd swear we were just being sentimental about the border by the way they are going on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 808 ✭✭✭Angry bird


    Calina wrote: »
    The shafting that is going on is by the UK. They voted to leave the EU with scant consideration of the ramifications on any part of themselves. They have negotiated not on the basis of wanting to leave but on the basis of having all of the benefits but none of the obligations. That is not wanting to leave. That is being psychopathically selfish. The impact of their decision in their neighbours has not formed any part of their thinking either. The EU's position mitigates issues for NI. That they are even negotiating at all mitigates the impact on the UK which can afford a crash out not at all.

    Against that UK government figures are already backtracking on agreements in principle. We are here now because the UK is demonstrating a lack of faith.

    At no point has the UK thought about anyone else's considerations. England does not even care about the considerations of UK constituent nations like Scotland.

    So your thought experiment is wasted. Every effort the EU makes to facilitate the UK has been spat back. We have been there, done the obliging, and now we have to look after our interests. If that means NI gets special treatment and benefits fine. But we are here not because of Ireland or Brussels.

    We are here because of the UK. Their union is monumentally at risk because of Brexit. Brexit changes the perspectives for Scitland and NI. Wales less so although I have heard Welsh people bitterly blame the numbers of English people living in certain parts of Wales for tipping Wales in support of Brexit. Even so, the Brexit result was carried primarily in England. And the way Britain has negotiated has not taken the considerations of NI and Scotland into account. You may scream about the vote being an all UK one. But the negotiations have not been done on an all UK basis.

    If they want to put their union at risk, who are we to stop them. In a scenario where Scotland leaves then a United Ireland becomes a greater possibility. England ignoring the interests of the other regions will have consequences.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    During PMq , TM said her and EU "we both agree that the backstop must be temporary" . That sounds worrying


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    During PMq , TM said her and EU "we both agree that the backstop must be temporary" . That sounds worrying

    Temporary =/= Time limited. Its only to apply until something better can replace it. The refusal for a time limit is purely so the UK cannot kick the border problem down the road only to walk away later on. Its to make them honor their commitments not walk away because it doesnt suit them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    During PMq , TM said her and EU "we both agree that the backstop must be temporary" . That sounds worrying

    I suspect the backstop she referred to was UK wide membership of the customs union. Apparently the EU side still wants NI to have indefinite backstop and UK wide customs union membership is purely to give the UK time to find a solution. May cannot sell indefinite UK membership of the CU to the ERG. But the EU wants to be certain they cannot play fast and loose at the Irish border.

    Basically, they have extra time to find a solution but at a price that suits sone of our needs and if they fail...well...

    PS....customs union membership is not really enough. Single markst membership otoh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,329 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Firblog is merely the latest in a long line of ‘why is this so difficult for the UK’ posters. I welcome such contributions, it keeps the thread sharp.

    At the most basic level, you shouldn’t get the benefits of a club with non of the obligations or a better deal than that offered to the members. The Brexit contingent have never quite understood that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭Bigus


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Firblog is merely the latest in a long line of ‘why is this so difficult for the UK’ posters. I welcome such contributions, it keeps the thread sharp.

    At the most basic level, you shouldn’t get the benefits of a club with non of the obligations or a better deal than that offered to the members. The Brexit contingent have never quite understood that.

    But the club will be so inferior without my superior membership that all club rules go out the window for me alone because the club without me couldn't sustain itself and will fall to pieces, just you wait and see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭Bigus


    A good read in the guardian posted an hour ago to help their UK readers understand what's going on in Brussels
    An article entitled
    "Britain’s magical thinking won’t make the EU accept the impossible"

    3 weeks before the 2016 referendum the German chancellor pointed out

    "But Merkel also saw how important facts were not being aired in the campaign. She expressed a “personal hope” that Britain would stay in the EU and added that to leave would be to surrender influence, because the best deals were done on the inside. The UK, she warned, would not find it comfortable negotiating from “outside the room”. "

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/16/britain-eu-brussels-brexit


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,414 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The people who voted to leave because they think the EU restricted British Sovereignty have been slowly getting a rude awakening.

    Their sovereignty consists of an entangled mesh of agreements they freely entered into on the basis that each of them conferred some benefit to them.

    They now are facing the reality that pulling out of those agreements, freely entered into, also means losing those benefits.

    And most ironically, the EU aren't even forcing them to stay or interfering in their internal politics in the slightest. The EU respects their sovereignty so much that we're sitting on the sidelines watching them implode allowing them all the options that are compatible with the rules of the EU and other international frameworks, including the right to remain or crash out without any deals.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,131 ✭✭✭flatty


    Firblog wrote: »
    Surely using 'well it was Britain that's leaving' as an argument for trying to shaft UK is the most ridiculous position ever.


    We are not trying to shaft the UK. Ireland was tipping along quite happily with the GFA in place, peace on the streets for 20 years.


    The UK threatening to leave the EU is trying to shaft Ireland, and we (and the EU on our behalf) are saying well, OK, that's allowed in the treaties, but if you do it, you leave with nothing.


    Do something to avoid shafting Ireland, and you get a FTA.


    And the UK already signed up last December, in writing, to the backstop that they now say is unacceptable.
    I would really like to emphasise that it is teresa may who, unaided and unprompted by any pleb, decided on her red lines. It is teresa may who is trying to weasel out of her agreements, and who would happily, and from a position of clear headed understanding, unlike the normal pleb, run the risk of reigniting armed conflict in NI just because teresa may had a run in with the echr in the dim and distant past.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,131 ✭✭✭flatty


    Do you know how ridiculous it has got? I told my wife, who refused to move back to Ireland (she is English with a job she loves in fairness) to make sure we had plenty of canned food stored, and she has started making a list of non perishable foodstuffs to store. That's where the tories have brought us. I despise them, and we are the kind of we'll off middle class family that should be their bread and butter. They have subverted democracy. The UK is a tinpot dictatorship in truth. The day the kids finish school I'm out of here with all I own.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,607 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The people who voted to leave because they think the EU restricted British Sovereignty have been slowly getting a rude awakening.

    Their sovereignty consists of an entangled mesh of agreements they freely entered into on the basis that each of them conferred some benefit to them.

    They now are facing the reality that pulling out of those agreements, freely entered into, also means losing those benefits.

    And most ironically, the EU aren't even forcing them to stay or interfering in their internal politics in the slightest. The EU respects their sovereignty so much that we're sitting on the sidelines watching them implode allowing them all the options that are compatible with the rules of the EU and other international frameworks, including the right to remain or crash out without any deals.

    ^^^This. TM, and her government, which lest anyone forgets included Johnston and Davies, agreed on these red lines and also signed the December Agreement. And that was the amended version of the agreement, amended after TM found that she didn't have the authority to make those kind of decisions.

    The choices facing TM and her government are exactly the same choices as faced day on day 1. The EU has played the long game, much to be exasperation of myself and others on here (the EU were right) and allowed TM the time and let her give her contradictory speeches in the hope that eventually reality would force her to she the only options that she had.

    But yesterdays performance would indicate that she still hasn't faced that reality yet. She still is trying to play the win-win game and keep everyone happy. She is so scared to stand up to anyone faction that yesterday she actually ended up getting attacked by almost every MP that spoke. In a dizzying array of non answers, she managed to provide nothing of substance yet at the same time annoy pretty much everyone.

    This is 100% a mess of the UK's making. There is nothing the EU, Ireland or anyone else could have done to save this. Even giving them everything they wanted would have simply resulted in them looking for something else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,414 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    And the EU are the bullies.

    This really is like a hypothetical marriage breakup where one person is being maximally fair and reasonable and open to having an amicable relationship up to and including calling off the divorce and going back to the way things were, and the other person is being maximally rude, obnoxious and duplicitous, calling the other side controlling, making up rumours and lies about them, making promises and then breaking them, demanding full access to the house and shared property while refusing to follow the existing rules that both had agreed to before.
    All the while claiming that they are being bullied and the other person is being unreasonable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,687 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Firblog wrote: »
    Surely using 'well it was Britain that's leaving' as an argument for trying to shaft UK is the most ridiculous position ever. Lets not forget a no deal Brexit will be dam near catastrophic for us. Then again it will be no surprise if the EU blithely sacrifices our economy for what they see as the greater EU good..

    On moving the border to Irish counties instead of the actual international border, you will have the same problems only km's away. There are too many roads and houses and farms that cross these "borders" that it will not solve any issue at all. So while politically it may be easier to not have an international border it doesn't actually solve any issues of why the border will be needed. How will you check that goods that are not supposed to enter the EU single market and ensure that tariffs have been paid if you cannot physically check them?

    You can actually look at Kaliningrad Oblast and its borders with the EU. There are always checks and there are only a few border crossings and most of the border follow natural borders, rivers, that makes it easier to police.

    Then the question of the EU trying to shaft the UK. It has been answered already but there is no plan from the EU to make the UK suffer. It is just the way the EU works, you cannot have the same benefits from the outside as those countries in the EU. So if the UK wanted to have the same benefits they would pay the EU budgets and cede to the ECJ, but if they want to be rid of those two aspects then they will not have those benefits that are attached to the EU budget payments and ECJ rulings. It really is quite simple.

    Angry bird wrote: »
    This Tory government have demonstrated repeatedly that they're not to be trusted. So wisely the deal last December included a backstop, which was re-affirmed in March.

    When dealing with untrustworthy types, you seek guarantees, up front, of the binding sort. Then you get to talk about the cheese.

    It is for the UK to decide what it wants, we all wish they'd decide and stop the internal in fighting and negotiating with themselves. The EU is playing the long game and if there's a no deal with this government, perhaps the next one would be more amenable to sign up, after first hand experience of what no deal means in reality.

    The EU holds the cards, our interests do not lie with sorting out the UKs problems.

    How long was it before they rowed back on the December agreement? That is why it is important for the EU to make it a legal agreement as they have bigger fish to fry than trying to negotiate with the UK every few months.

    flatty wrote: »
    Do you know how ridiculous it has got? I told my wife, who refused to move back to Ireland (she is English with a job she loves in fairness) to make sure we had plenty of canned food stored, and she has started making a list of non perishable foodstuffs to store. That's where the tories have brought us. I despise them, and we are the kind of we'll off middle class family that should be their bread and butter. They have subverted democracy. The UK is a tinpot dictatorship in truth. The day the kids finish school I'm out of here with all I own.


    Is it any wonder that it seems like there is pressure from No.10, or at the very least dragging of their feet, on the investigations on interference in the referendum? Why would they not want to know what was done illegally and what interference there was from Russia? Why is the Canadian parliament having a more thorough investigation into AIQ than the UK?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭EdgeCase


    I'm reading a lot of reports about a legal argument over whether the UK wide backstop agreement is even legally possible under Article 50.

    It seems the French in particular are arguing that any exception should only be limited to Northern Ireland due to its unique situation and very small size, but that the UK wide approach is illegal under the current structure.

    Other are arguing that article 50 is broad enough and vague enough to allow it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,607 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I think the concession of a UK wide backstop is really the problem. TM knows this is a perfect solution, but the EU are only willing to give it on the condition that the NI backstop is non time limited, whilst they all accept that the Uk wide one is purely temporary.

    So to get the UK wide one, she has to accept the NI one. She doesn't want to be seen to give that, but she knows that the UK wide one is simply too good to let go. Basically, here is a solution to avoid a hard brexit and give the UK sufficient time to prepare for life outside the EU, but to get it you need to guarantee that the NI border is off the table.

    That she chose to mock the EU with her 'insurance to the insurance' line betrays how seriously she knows this is.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Silly question - I probably should have grasped it by now - but why is it that the NI backstop cannot be time limited?

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,499 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hermy wrote: »
    Silly question - I probably should have grasped it by now - but why is it that the NI backstop cannot be time limited?
    Because it's a contradiction in terms. If it's time-limited it ceases to be backstop.

    The "backstop" is the state of affairs that will prevail when existing arrangements terminate, if nothing else is agreed in the meantime. The backstop was to be that NI would be kept in "full regulatory alignment" to the extent necesaty to keep the border open. In practice this mean keeping NI in the customs union and (for some purposes) in the single market. This would continue until some other arrangement (which would keep the border open) was agreed between the EU and the UK.

    Right. If the proposal now is that NI remain in "full regulatory alignment" until some other arrangement is agreed OR until (say) 1 January 2022, whichever comes first, that's no longer the backstop. The backstop is whatever will happen on 1 January 2022, assuming the parties don't reach any on a new arrangement in the meantime. (And what would happen in that situation is a hard border. Which, obviously, is not an acceptable backstop to the EU.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    WRT to the Irish border the solution was always going to be a Norway style deal with Customs Union which elimated the need for a back stop or a Canada style deal with a full NI backstop.

    The UK wasted 2 years on a technical solution. There is none: US/Can and Nor/Swe border every Lorry is stopped.

    The whole of UK Customs arrangement was reluctantly agreed by Brussels. There still needs to be a backstop.

    Otherwise the EU is conceding that the future trade agreement will be close enough to mean a backstop is not necessary. As there wont be a have cake and eat or technical solution this is highly unlikely.

    The EU can't bend on this and the UK has agreed a full backstop in December in any event which May is ignoring.

    Remaining drama to be played out in London now. Pun intended.

    All sides were calling for a peoples vote after her statement yesterday.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 261 ✭✭kuro68k


    Hermy wrote: »
    Silly question - I probably should have grasped it by now - but why is it that the NI backstop cannot be time limited?

    Because the UK can't be trusted. If there was a time limit of say 2 years then the UK would be able to simply wait it out and not do a deal.

    Even if the current government was trustworthy there is no guarantee about future governments. The backstop needs to be legally binding with severe consequences for breaking it, otherwise the EU would be crazy to trust us with it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement