Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Inquitus

Downcow, you seem to think the UK is owed something by the EU in the event of "No Deal", and that we should give you special treatment, when in fact you will become a 3rd nation as far as we are concerned, someone geographically closer, but no different in economic terms to India, China or the USA.

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

Well here we have the blinkers shown again.
You have zero interest in challenging listermint on his clear inaccuracies but you challenge me on subjective stuff like PRETTY CLOSE.
But you are wrong again as a very substantial amount of NI frieght companies have the lorries registered in the south so they have actually probably gone exactly prorata- but much more interesting is your need to attack me and not listermint

Listermint's statements were essentially accurate. On the questions of permits he initially claimed that it was less than half what it should be. In reality it was 52% of what it should be. Now you could be pedantic and say that he was wrong because he claimed it was less than 50% and in reality it is slightly over 50%. But he was at most off by 3% whereas you were off by up to 48%, which is why I took issue with your claim and not Listermints.

Half the pro-rata allocation is not pretty close to the full allocation, especially when the argument is weather of not the allocation is half of what it should be. That is not subjective, it is common sense, something you seem to lack when it suits you in order to create frustration amongst those with whom you debate.

One can only assume that NI freight companies will end up registering a lot more trucks in the south as a result of Brexit. Indeed many NI freight companies might just become Irish freight companies because of Brexit. Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving.

prawnsambo

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Watching BBC's Newsnight Programme now.

The Tory person (whoever he is) is still saying with absolute confidence that they EU always blinks at the last minute and things always run down to the wire etc, apparently now it's only one small change:rolleyes:.

Infuriating really.

Nobody ever asks for examples of when that has 'always' happened. Or pointed out that we are actually at the eleventh hour.

listermint

downcow wrote: »

Folks
I continue to be amazed. I asked an honest civil question about how the Eu came up with the figure of 60 licences.

There was an onslaught of anger and accusations, many of which I can’t respond to as they are off thread and most of which are clearly untrue and just nasty.
I can’t even read them as fast as you guys are posting

Why are many of you so angry about this brexit thing and yet posting how Eu is king. Ireland will be looked after and UK is in dire straights.
Is your anger out of concern for the UK?

Sorry let's put a plug in this point.

Westminster came up with 60.

The EU did not

Anthracite

downcow wrote: »

Thanks
That would seem like one that would be easily sorted with the right attitude ie an exemption for licences in UK & eu for each other’s lorries

The right attitude? The UK is jeopardising the Irish border and has displayed astonishing duplicity and malfeasance in these negotiations, and you are calling for 'the right atticude' from the EU, just to helpl them out of the hole they are furiously digging for themselves while insulting the leadership and the people of the EU?

prawnsambo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

One can only assume that NI freight companies will end up registering a lot more trucks in the south as a result of Brexit. Indeed many NI freight companies might just become Irish freight companies because of Brexit. Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving.

On that Twitter thread, people were suggesting that they drive their trucks to DUP constituency offices and protest there. That's the level of anger that's being expressed towards them. They are going to be wiped out at the next election.

Imreoir2

prawnsambo wrote: »

Nobody ever asks for examples of when that has 'always' happened. Or pointed out that we are actually at the eleventh hour.

I think the main examples would be the Maastrict Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. We all remember how the EU were under pressure because we rejected Lisbon. The big point here being that while the EU did have to address concerns, it did not change the text of the treaty to do so.

listermint

prawnsambo wrote: »

On that Twitter thread, people were suggesting that they drive their trucks to DUP constituency offices and protest there. That's the level of anger that's being expressed towards them. They are going to be wiped out at the next election.

And they'd be right . The hauliers should be entitled to double the allocation. No one is voicing their concerns. NI has no representation for the business community. None. Zero

downcow

listermint wrote: »

Which inaccuracies.

I came back to you on that.

Please do explain

Was it you suggested earlier to get the crayons out to explain something to me.

1.5 is not less than 2.8
Dup did not close Stormont (Sf remind us of this almost daily).

listermint

downcow wrote: »

Was it you suggested earlier to get the crayons out to explain something to me.

1.5 is not less than 2.8
Dup did not close Stormont (Sf remind us of this almost daily).

I'm afraid not.

Why are you putting words in my mouth. Where did you get the crayons jibe? From a telegraph article?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Calm, level headed debate is required on all sides. If uou feel someone is breaking the rules then report them or ignore them, but dont escalate the situation.

Reading the last few pages, it seems to me that there is unwarranted hostility on both sides. This means of one three things:

1. Everyone involved gets banned;
2. I shut the thread and brexit doesnt get to be discussed in the politics forum anymore; or
3. We all show each other respect and decorum.

No prizes for guessing which I think is the optimum outcome.

downcow

If you’re a Northern Ireland vehicle operator

If you have an operator licence from the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, the UK government expects you will not need an ECMT permit to drive to or through Ireland.

The UK government will seek an agreement with Ireland to allow continued access for Northern Ireland hauliers to Ireland without the need for ECMT permits.

The UK government has stated it will not require Irish hauliers to have ECMT permits to operate in Northern Ireland.

It now looks like the UK we bring extra generous to give us sixty when most of our lorries won’t need any.
I’m no fan of the dup but well done if you had anything to do with agreeing that one.

blanch152

listermint wrote: »

.

The dup pulled down stormont through fraud deception and abysmal ethics. I am scratching my head how you would defend that. As you stated several times you don't like the dup your no fan of theirs.

However your defense of them says different.

To be fair to downcow (and most of what he posts is completely wrong) the DUP did not bring down Stormont. SF chose to bring down Stormont based on their view of something the DUP had done. You can argue that SF had no choice, but it was their decision.

breatheme

downcow wrote: »

These post that are flying about is what o tried to address the other night.
Is this a serious comment that you believe the Eu has no interest in access to the UK market.
This is the sort of stuff that undermines the remain argument

Why would the EU have an interest in accessing the UK?

Or why does the UK even want to access the EU market? I thought that Brexit now meant Brexit and that means out of the Single Market and Customs Union.

MrMusician18

I was fascinated with this story for the past few weeks, buy have to admit my interest has now waned. There nothing happening - just total paralysis.

That in itself is interesting I guess, but leaves nothing to talk about.

downcow

What is the last point tm can publicly announce she is going for an extension and still have time to achieve it?

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

What is the last point tm can publicly announce she is going for an extension and still have time to achieve it?

It has to get unainmous approval from all EU27. A special council would probably have to be called, although I seem to remember that there is one planned for late March.

Akrasia

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I was fascinated with this story for the past few weeks, buy have to admit my interest has now waned. There nothing happening - just total paralysis.

That in itself is interesting I guess, but leaves nothing to talk about.

There's plenty for the historians of tomorrow to analyse about the events of these past weeks and what will happen over the next two months. Its just that its happening in slow motion deliberately because one side are refusing to move forward while the opposition are putting thrm under zero pressure to resolve the crisis

Inquitus

downcow wrote: »

What is the last point tm can publicly announce she is going for an extension and still have time to achieve it?

It needs agreement from all 27 remaining EU member parliaments, I would estimate that needs a minimum of 2 weeks and perhaps longer. The EU has also stated it has no interest in granting an extension unless the UK proposes significant changes to its position which would make such an extension worthwhile for them to pursue.

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

What is the last point tm can publicly announce she is going for an extension and still have time to achieve it?

An extention is dependant on the EU being willing to grant one. It's less of an issue of time and more an issue of having a good reason to seek an extension. The EU is not willing to grant an extension unless the UK has a clear plan in place.

tuxy

Would an extension if granted be limited to May 23rd when the MEP elections take place?

Imreoir2

tuxy wrote: »

Would an extension if granted be limited to May 23rd when the MEP elections take place?

The suggestion is that an extension could be granted until I think July, just before the new EU parliament is due to meet. One wonders what happens if the UK take an extension and then want to revoke A50 after having missed the EU elections.

tuxy

I see so they could give any extension that the EU27 agree on and after May the UK has no MEP's correct?

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The suggestion is that an extension could be granted until I think July, just before the new EU parliament is due to meet. One wonders what happens if the UK take an extension and then want to revoke A50 after having missed the EU elections.

Apparently, an EU Parliament which doesn't have representation from one member state can be considered illegal. It's something Ian Dunt said on the Remainiacs podcast. I can't find a source but he claimed that an EU Parliament which doesn't have representation from one member state can have any legislation it passes be deemed illegal by challenge.

Basically, an extension of Article 50 needs to resolve this problem as does the possibility of revoking Article 50.

prawnsambo

tuxy wrote: »

I see so they could give any extension that the EU27 agree on and after May the UK has no MEP's correct?

I think so. Afaik, the UK seats have been chopped down to 27 and doled out to the remaining member states. I could be wrong about the number, but I'm pretty sure it's a good deal less than the 73 they had.

tuxy

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think so. Afaik, the UK seats have been chopped down to 27 and doled out to the remaining member states.

I guess there is also points in time where they would be expected to pay for continued access to the single market just like everyone else.

Water John

It also requires a vote of the EU Parliament. They may not be as easily persuaded, have an independent streak.

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apparently, an EU Parliament which doesn't have representation from one member state can be considered illegal. It's something Ian Dunt said on the Remainiacs podcast. I can't find a source but he claimed that an EU Parliament which doesn't have representation from one member state can have any legislation it passes be deemed illegal by challenge.

Basically, an extension of Article 50 needs to resolve this problem as does the possibility of revoking Article 50.

Does that mean that there can't be an extension untill after the election, or that an extension could only be granted on the basis that A50 could not then be revoked?

Enzokk

As have been said that the EU could extend article 50 until 30 June 2019 but there will not be a extension after that as the UK will not have participated in the EU election and they will not have MEPs on 1 July 2019 when they are a member. That means the parliament is not valid or at least the decisions they take can be challenged as a EU member didn't have any representation. The UK will still have MEPs up to 1 July.

If the UK withdraws article 50 after the EU elections it will absolutely piss off the EU as they will have wasted not just the article 50 two years but also the elections that would have cost money.

Imreoir2

Enzokk wrote: »

As have been said that the EU could extend article 50 until 30 June 2019 but there will not be a extension after that as the UK will not have participated in the EU election and they will not have MEPs on 1 July 2019 when they are a member. That means the parliament is not valid or at least the decisions they take can be challenged as a EU member didn't have any representation. The UK will still have MEPs up to 1 July.

If the UK withdraws article 50 after the EU elections it will absolutely piss off the EU as they will have wasted not just the article 50 two years but also the elections that would have cost money.

Does that mean that fresh EU elections would have to take place if the UK revoked A50 in that sceanro?