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 II

1…109110112114115…305

Comments

  • #3332
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Yes, I'm finding May's speech to be somewhat underwhelming (at least what's been leaked of it) given all the hype its been given.

    She wants to remain in the single market for two years post-exit and will contribute €20 billion to the EU budget for it. That's hardly earth-shattering news.

    If that's all there is, I'd agree with demfad and expect the reaction to be "that's all very well, but we need to resolve the three issues in the first strand of negotiations first...."


  • #3333
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    demfad wrote: »
    This is an excerpt Michel Barnier's speech from yesterday which is essential for evaluating May's speech today: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3404_en.htm#_ftn1

    If May is serious she will address these points during her Florence speech in a few hours. If it's more cakeism then they are not serious.
    Or as Barnier put it: "will UK leave in an orderly fashion with an agreement, or not?"

    Apparently Barnier will reply within 15 minutes of the speech.
    Very clear on citizens rights above and the other red lines.

    The whole speech is well worth a read. May will ask for a two year transition deal. Barnier addresses this:

    In other words the transition deal will be under full EU rules.

    He also says:

    This rules out the UK trying to use a transition deal as a cushion against a no-deal. No-deal will mean the UK leaves the EU in 2019 with no deal.

    Good morning!

    I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

    There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

    However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

    If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3334
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,626 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Interesting. It seems to me that opens up the possiblity of a transition agreement fulfilling two functions:

    1. Provide a period for practical preparation for implementation of the agreed transition deal - recruiting and training staff, devising systems, drafting regulations, engaging in consultation with/communication to affected stakeholderse, constructing facilities, whatever might be needed. During this period the UK continues for most practical purposes to be treated as an EU member, but preparations are made for the different treatment that will commence at the end of the transition.

    2. Provide a period during which the UK can negotiate, but not conclude or implement, trade and other deals with third countries. Maximises the chances that at the end of the transition period the UK can transition immediately, or at least with a minimal gap, into at least some of the new trade deals/arrangements that it hopes to conclude.


  • #3335
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,626 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections . . .
    That's why people are still discussing citizens rights. The EU wants them to have the rights that they currently enjoy, and it wants that provided for in the Brexit agreement, rather than simply in UK law. The UK hasn't (yet) agreed to the EU position, and the EU hasn't (yet) agreed to the UK position, so they need to keep talking. Otherwise there will be no agreement.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

    If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.
    As I say, it cuts both ways. You open this post by suggesting that, as the UK has made its position on citizens' rights clear, there is no need for further discussion of citizens' rights. Do you not see the irony here?


  • #3336
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I expect that the "transition period" from 2019 will effectively be continued membership of everything under existing rules with some language to placate the Brexiteers.

    It may begin with a two-year duration, but there will be a clause in there to extend it if the difficulties with having cake and eating it have not been resolved.

    Two extra years will not be enough to get the job done.


  • Advertisement
  • #3337
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,626 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    One of the main issues for the UK during the transition period is that, although they'll have the benefits and burdens of membership at the coalface, so to speak, they won't actually be members, and therefore they won't be represented at the Council of Ministers or at EU Summits, they won't be involved in Treaty discussions, they won't have a veto, etc, etc.

    They'll want some kind of ejector seat clause, so to speak, that says that if things are done at that level during the transition period they can crash out, so to speak, and leave fully with immediate effect. But that's a nuclear option; it would be hugely damaging to the UK actually to have to use that. So they'll also want a clause that give them some rights to be consulted, to express opinions, yadda, yadda, yadda, so that they can try to head off such developments or, in the worst case, prepare for them. And it gives them a strong incentive to make sure that the transition period isn't any longer than it needs to be.


  • #3338
    mountaintop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭mountaintop


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

    There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

    However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.


    If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    I'm curious. You say you are Irish but you talk like you are an English man. You have been asked about the damage to your home country (Ireland) but you waffle on about trade pacts, etc, etc. It's an never ending merry go round. From your emotional heart, can you not be objective and see the economic damage and yes, the possible loss of life this Brexit you are so fully behind is going to cause here. I mean, think about it. Ireland is prosperous, it is at peace: PEACE! Does that count for nothing. And please don't quote the Daily Telegraph again.


  • #3339
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Crikey, even Conservative MPs aren't too clear about the whole thing:
    Although May claims to have united the cabinet, some backbench Tory Eurosceptics will not be happy with the idea of any more payments to the EU after the point of departure.

    Peter Bone, a Brexit supporter, told Sky: “Any divorce bill would be too much for me ... If you ask my constituents, in Wellingborough we want an urgent care centre. We’ve been campaigning for years, and it’s a few million pounds. And we are told there is not enough money for that.

    “If we’re then told we’re giving £20bn to subsidise Romania and Poland, I think my constituents, and I think constituents around the country, would be furious about that.”

    Someone needs to tell him that the proposed €20 billion payment is for two more years membership of the single market and that the exit settlement -what he terms the "divorce bill" is something entirely different.


  • #3340
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    mountaintop wrote: »
    I'm curious. You say you are Irish but you talk like you are an English man. You have been asked about the damage to your home country (Ireland) but you waffle on about trade pacts, etc, etc. It's an never ending merry go round. From your emotional heart, can you not be objective and see the economic damage and yes, the possible loss of life this Brexit you are so fully behind is going to cause here. I mean, think about it. Ireland is prosperous, it is at peace: PEACE! Does that count for nothing. And please don't quote the Daily Telegraph again.

    Good morning!

    You do realise that one can be Irish and be a Eurosceptic? I personally have no desire in the slightest in conforming to your personal shibboleth of what it means to be Irish.

    I can see benefits of standing outside of the European Union, and plenty of them. I'm convinced that they will involve some cost up front, but I think being outside of the European Union is definitely the right option for the UK long term. I'm still hopeful of a good trade deal, but this requires goodwill in Brussels.

    I don't get emotional at all about the European Union really. I'm not passionate at all about it. The people have spoken. That's what I care about politically - democracy - delivering the peoples vote.

    I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative. Perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process? Or the roles of Bill Clinton and others from the US? You could argue EU funding, but that's really just UK taxpayers money redistributed by Brussels.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3341
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Fantastic article by Simon Kuper at the Financial Times today about the problems with the referendum and British politics in general:
    The British chemist Sir Humphry Davy (born 1778) liked dangerous experiments. He was fired from his job as an apothecary for causing constant explosions. Later, as a chemist, he enjoyed inhaling the gases he worked with. This helped him discover that nitrous oxide (laughing gas) was a potent anaesthetic. “Unfortunately,” notes a short guide to his career from Oxford University Press, “the same habit led him to nearly kill himself on many occasions and the frequent poisonings left him an invalid for the last two decades of his life.” It was probably worth it: Davy isolated substances including calcium and strontium, identified the element iodine and made the first electric light.

    Much like Davy, the UK is now experimenting on itself for the benefit of humanity. Advanced societies rarely do anything so reckless, which is why the Brexit experiment is so valuable. In between self-poisonings, Brexit keeps producing discoveries that surprise both Leavers and Remainers. Here are some early lessons for other countries:

    When you focus on a wedge issue, you divide society. The Brexit vote has introduced unprecedented rancour into a traditionally apolitical country. Insults such as “enemies of the people”, “saboteurs”, “racists” and “go home to where you came from” are now daily British fare. Brexit rows split generations at family weddings and Christmas. All this was avoidable: until the referendum, few Britons had strong views on the EU, just as few Americans thought about transgender bathroom habits until their politicians discovered the issue. If you have to address wedge issues, best to aim for compromise rather than a winner-take-all solution such as a referendum.

    All countries need real-time election regulators. There have always been people who lied to win votes. But now they have social media. Every slow, understaffed, 20th-century election regulator must therefore retool itself into a kind of courtroom judge who can call out falsehoods instantly. The model is the UK Statistics Authority’s reprimand of Boris Johnson last Sunday, after he repeated the nonsense that leaving the EU would free up £350m a week for the National Health Service.

    Revolutionaries invariably underestimate transition costs. Maybe if you have a blank slate, being out of the EU is better than being in it. But the calculation changes once you’ve been in the EU for 43 years. All your arrangements are then predicated on being in, and suddenly they become redundant. The cost of change is a classic conservative insight, though it’s been forgotten by the Conservative party.

    Almost every system is more complex than it looks. Most people can’t describe the workings of a toilet, writes Steven Sloman, cognitive scientist at Brown University. The EU is even more complicated, and so leaving it has countless unforeseen ramifications. Most Britons had no idea last year that voting Leave could mean closing the Irish border, or giving ministers dictatorial powers to rewrite law. Because of complexity, so-called common sense is a bad guide to policy making. Complexity is also an argument against direct democracy.

    Immigrants fulfil a role. Any society in which they live comes to depend on them. Britain’s NHS and the City of London would buckle without them. You may calculate that your distaste for immigrants is worth some lost functioning, but you have to acknowledge the trade-off.

    You have to choose who to surrender your sovereignty to. Brexiters are right to say that the EU has usurped some of British sovereignty. But as John Major, former British prime minister, remarks, in a connected world the only fully sovereign state is North Korea. All other countries are forever trading away bits of sovereignty. For instance, the trade deal that the UK hopes to sign one day with the EU will entail adopting the EU’s standards on everything from cars to toys. You can decide to give away your sovereignty in new ways but, in practice, you can’t decide to keep it.

    A government can only handle one massive project at a time. This is at best, and only if the whole government agrees on it. There simply isn’t the staff or head space to do much more. Carrying out Brexit means not fixing what Johnson in February 2016 called “the real problems of this country — low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc — that have nothing to do with Europe”. (See my colleague Martin Sandbu’s recent demolition of Johnson’s inconsistencies.)

    Negotiations get harder when you lose your counter-party’s trust. That’s what Greece discovered during its negotiations with the EU, says Greek economic analyst Paris Mantzavras of Pantelakis Securities. Mocking the other side in public — as Greece’s Yanis Varoufakis did, and as British politicians now do regularly — is therefore a losing tactic.

    There is no reset button in human affairs. The UK cannot return to its imagined pre-EU idyll, because the world has changed since 1973. Nor can Britons simply discard the Brexit experiment if it goes wrong, and revert to June 22 2016. The past is over, so it’s a poor guide to policymaking.

    These lessons come too late for the UK itself, so please consider them our selfless gift to the world, like football.

    Source

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • #3342
    mountaintop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭mountaintop


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    You do realise that one can be Irish and be a Eurosceptic? I personally have no desire in the slightest in conforming to your personal shibboleth of what it means to be Irish.

    I can see benefits of standing outside of the European Union, and plenty of them. I'm convinced that they will involve some cost up front, but I think being outside of the European Union is definitely the right option for the UK long term.

    I don't get emotional at all about the European Union really. I'm not passionate at all about it. The people have spoken. That's what I care about politically - democracy - delivering the peoples vote.

    I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative. Perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process? Or the roles of Bill Clinton and others from the US? You could argue EU funding, but that's really just UK taxpayers money redistributed by Brussels.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    You didn't answer my question, whatever 'Shibboleth' means. You'll get dizzy on that jargon merry-go-round of yours. 'I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative', what does that mean? Waffle. And then you say 'perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process?' And what does that mean? And is there a Freudian slip in there: 'Resolving the Peace Process'. That's the last thing we want, to have the peace process resolved!


  • #3343
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    I can see benefits of standing outside of the European Union, and plenty of them.

    Yet you are strangely unable to point them out to us.

    (Cue solo's mantra that he has done so many times here and we should consult his collected works.)


  • #3344
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Fantastic article by Simon Kuper at the Financial Times today about the problems with the referendum and British politics in general:

    Source

    Good afternoon!

    I'm not convinced it is excellent. Here's why.
    Almost every system is more complex than it looks. Most people can’t describe the workings of a toilet, writes Steven Sloman, cognitive scientist at Brown University. The EU is even more complicated, and so leaving it has countless unforeseen ramifications. Most Britons had no idea last year that voting Leave could mean closing the Irish border, or giving ministers dictatorial powers to rewrite law. Because of complexity, so-called common sense is a bad guide to policy making. Complexity is also an argument against direct democracy.

    He presents this as a negative to Brexit, but the inherent complexity of the bureaucracy that is the Brussels political union machine is a problem with the European Union. It is a problem that has been pointed out time and time again.

    As a software engineer - simple, clean solutions tend to be best. The European Union is no such solution. The answer it presents to every single problem is more unnecessary complexity in the name of further integration to God knows what. The answer is actually simplicity. It is always simplicity.

    The UK would have never left a looser union that supported nation states in an effective way.
    Any society in which they live comes to depend on them. Britain’s NHS and the City of London would buckle without them. You may calculate that your distaste for immigrants is worth some lost functioning, but you have to acknowledge the trade-off.

    This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.
    The UK cannot return to its imagined pre-EU idyll, because the world has changed since 1973. Nor can Britons simply discard the Brexit experiment if it goes wrong, and revert to June 22 2016. The past is over, so it’s a poor guide to policymaking.

    This is another silly strawman. The reason why I support Brexit is because it allows the UK to effectively engage with a growing world around it rather than being chained to the policies of the European Union in respect to trade in particular. It is a response to a world that is changing.
    You have to choose who to surrender your sovereignty to. Brexiters are right to say that the EU has usurped some of British sovereignty. But as John Major, former British prime minister, remarks, in a connected world the only fully sovereign state is North Korea. All other countries are forever trading away bits of sovereignty. For instance, the trade deal that the UK hopes to sign one day with the EU will entail adopting the EU’s standards on everything from cars to toys. You can decide to give away your sovereignty in new ways but, in practice, you can’t decide to keep it.

    Again, would you believe it? Yet another strawman.

    The UK doesn't object to collaboration with other nations. It objects to the terms of European Union membership. It demands control that the British people thought went too far.

    The terms of being a member of NATO for example are much less demanding than membership of the European Union. No other bloc on the face of the earth that I can think of demands so much control from its member states.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3345
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,961 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

    There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

    However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

    If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal. There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


    The fundamental flaw in all your posts, and it seems in the general thinking of the UK is that you and they appear to believe firstly, that they are negotiating as equals and that secondly, a Brexit deal is as important to the EU as it is to the UK. Neither of those beliefs are true.

    The UK is negotiating with 27 countries who have banded together for extra negotiating strength. In any such negotiation, it is clear who has a weak hand and who has a strong hand. Outcomes reflect this.

    It is already clear that in any hard Brexit, the UK will suffer a huge amount, Northern Ireland even more, Ireland will suffer too but a good bit less than the UK and the EU will have a slight hiccup.


  • #3346
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    mountaintop wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question, whatever 'Shibboleth' means. You'll get dizzy on that jargon merry-go-round of yours. 'I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative', what does that mean? Waffle. And then you say 'perhaps you should consider the role of the British government in resolving the peace process?' And what does that mean? And is there a Freudian slip in there: 'Resolving the Peace Process'. That's the last thing we want, to have the peace process resolved!

    Good afternoon!

    Here's a definition of shibboleth. It's a word in English borrowed from Hebrew. It's a word, expression or custom used to differentiate in groups from out groups.

    The shibboleth that you added to the conversation is that I am not in the Irish in group because I support Brexit. I couldn't care less about what you think about my national identity.

    Your claim that the EU is somehow contingent to peace in Ireland is manipulative. It is intended to say that by supporting Brexit I support the return of violence to Ireland. That's not true, it's obviously manipulative language.

    My point about the British government is that they played a key role in the peace negotiations, as did the Americans. Yet, the EU is central to peace? I don't agree with this assumption.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3347
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    He presents this as a negative to Brexit, but the inherent complexity of the bureaucracy that is the Brussels political union machine is a problem with the European Union. It is a problem that has been pointed out time and time again.

    Bureaucracy is ubiquitous. It is by no means a uniquely Brussels problem. I don't know why you've presented it as if it were. If one looks at the Lord Ashcroft polls I linked to recently, one can see that Sovereignty and Immigration twinned account for over 80% of the Leave vote. Bureaucracy, if it is a problem is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the British economy is heavily intertwined with the single market and undoing 43 years of economic integration is going to take a lot more than 2 years hence the widespread acceptance of the need for a transition period.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    As a software engineer - simple, clean solutions tend to be best. The European Union is no such solution. The answer it presents to every single problem is more unnecessary complexity in the name of further integration to God knows what. The answer is actually simplicity. It is always simplicity.

    The European Union is not a piece of software. Why you're bringing this up is beyond me.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

    So why does non-EU immigration count for more than 50%. Why has this not been reduced?
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    This is another silly strawman. The reason why I support Brexit is because it allows the UK to effectively engage with a growing world around it rather than being chained to the policies of the European Union in respect to trade in particular. It is a response to a world that is changing.

    It isn't. The EU and immigrants were widely and wrongfully blamed for stagnant wages, soaring house prices and strained public services. If one accepts this premise then implementing the solution of leaving should solve all this. But of course the real world is much more complicated hence my earlier befuddlement at your software analogy above.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Again, would you believe it? Yet another strawman.

    You deny that globalisation is happening?
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    The UK doesn't object to collaboration with other nations. It objects to the terms of European Union membership. It demands control that the British people thought went too far.

    The terms of being a member of NATO for example are much less demanding than membership of the European Union. No other bloc on the face of the earth that I can think of demands so much control from its member states.

    Surrendering the decision as to whether or not to go to war at the other side of the world sounds like a serious loss of control to me.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #3348
    breatheme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 382 ✭✭breatheme


    solodeogloria;104751412
    No other bloc on the face of the earth that I can think of demands so much control from its member states.
    No other bloc allows such levels of trade amongst its member states.


  • #3349
    mountaintop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭mountaintop


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!

    This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

    That's very nice of you but excuse me, aren't you an immigrant yourself? Or have you forgotten that? Have you now morphed into believing you are British and someone has to remind you that you are not, that you are Irish. Your remarks, forgive me, smack of condescension. Remember where you came from, have some empathy for those who still 'take the boat' for a better life, like millions of your forebearers did.


  • #3350
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good afternoon!
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    The European Union is not a piece of software. Why you're bringing this up is beyond me.

    The principles are the same. Simple structures are better than overly complicated structures. A simpler union would have meant that the terms of its membership would have been easier to swallow, or even many different "unions" with the opportunity to opt in and out of particular forms of cooperation.
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    So why does non-EU immigration count for more than 50%. Why has this not been reduced?

    I've discussed this already at length. Non-EU immigration is inherently different to EU immigration. We don't need to repeat ourselves.
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It isn't. The EU and immigrants were widely and wrongfully blamed for stagnant wages, soaring house prices and strained public services. If one accepts this premise then implementing the solution of leaving should solve all this. But of course the real world is much more complicated hence my earlier befuddlement at your software analogy above.

    How is this a response to my point about Brexit being a response to a changing world? It definitely is. The share of global economic growth outside of the EU is only going to get bigger and bigger. Binding your economic policy to the EU isn't sensible when there are clear economic opportunities to trade with the wider world.
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    You deny that globalisation is happening?

    No, I don't deny cooperation with other countries. I deny that being bound to a heavily restrictive bloc is the right way to deal with it.

    Again, Brexit is a result of a desire to deal with the world, not to be chained to EU specific policy.
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Surrendering the decision as to whether or not to go to war at the other side of the world sounds like a serious loss of control to me.

    Believe it or not, it's far less than the amount of control that the EU demand. At least NATO doesn't mandate that the UK has to accept free movement from all of it's members and trade with the trade partners that only they approve of.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3351
    Mezcita
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭Mezcita


    solodeogloria wrote: »

    I see any attempt to make it contingent to peace in Ireland as being highly manipulative.

    Hardly. The moment anything resembling a hard border between the north and south emerges will inevitably lead to guys with explosives thinking that it's a good idea to let off a few bombs to make their point. They've done it before and would do it again.

    Once again though I think this has already been factored into the UK's approach to this. If a few people end up dying it's not really that important in the whole scheme of things.

    Personally delighted that Barnier has highlighted the importance of the border situation being resolved. The UK can ignore it all they like but it's not going to go away.


  • Advertisement
  • #3352
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    The principles are the same. Simple structures are better than overly complicated structures. A simpler union would have meant that the terms of its membership would have been easier to swallow, or even many different "unions" with the opportunity to opt in and out of particular forms of cooperation.

    No they're not. Governments are complex, as are civil services, corporations, councils, companies etc...People make things complicated.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    I've discussed this already at length. Non-EU immigration is inherently different to EU immigration. We don't need to repeat ourselves.

    I was repeating nothing. EU governments have limited welfare for EU migrants and regulated non-EU migration. EU immigrants have contributed to the British economy.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Binding your economic policy to the EU isn't sensible when there are clear economic opportunities to trade with the wider world.

    Clear and yet you can't name a single one. Don't bother responding with your usual see above spiel. I know where asking that question leads.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    No, I don't deny cooperation with other countries. I deny that being bound to a heavily restrictive bloc is the right way to deal with it.

    Again, Brexit is a result of a desire to deal with the world, not to be chained to EU specific policy.

    That's just your interpretation. I see no desire to deal with the rest of the world whatsoever. It's just empty waffle from people who either want immigration curbed or eliminated or who think the EU is stifling Britain but can't actually be specific.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Believe it or not, it's far less than the amount of control that the EU demand. At least NATO doesn't mandate that the UK has to accept free movement from all of it's members and trade with the trade partners that only they approve of.

    In your opinion. NATO does mandate that the UK must make itself a target for Russian nuclear weapons if Putin invades Estonia but this is somehow preferable to free movement. I know which I prefer.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #3353
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    mountaintop wrote: »
    This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.

    That's very nice of you but excuse me, aren't you an immigrant yourself? Or have you forgotten that? Have you now morphed into believing you are British and someone has to remind you that you are not, that you are Irish. Your remarks, forgive me, smack of condescension. Remember where you came from, have some empathy for those who still 'take the boat' for a better life, like millions of your forebearers did.

    Good afternoon!

    I'm hugely thankful to the UK for the opportunities I've got here. I entered the UK as a citizen of the Common Travel Area which has existed since the early 1920's even if not by that exact title. If British immigration policy changed, I would be happy to comply with any measures that were applied.

    The UK has every right to act on the basis of the concerns raised in the referendum, and that's why I think the Government needs to consider controls on immigration from the EU.

    I find your continued undermining of my nationality a bit inappropriate. I don't question yours, so I don't see why you need to insist that I conform to your narrow minded definition of being Irish.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3354
    mountaintop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭mountaintop


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!

    I'm hugely thankful to the UK for the opportunities I've got here. I entered the UK as a citizen of the Common Travel Area which has existed since the early 1920's even if not by that exact title. If British immigration policy changed, I would be happy to comply with any measures that were applied.

    The UK has every right to act on the basis of the concerns raised in the referendum, and that's why I think the Government needs to consider controls on immigration from the EU.

    I find your continued undermining of my nationality a bit inappropriate. I don't question yours, so I don't see why you need to insist that I conform to your narrow minded definition of being Irish.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    Another Frudean Slip: Continued undermining of MY nationality you say. What you really mean is your Britishness. Now, lest it be misunderstood, I've worked and lived in the U.K. myself. I admire Britain and have many British relatives and friends. That's not the issue.


  • #3355
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭ambro25


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    He presents this as a negative to Brexit, but the inherent complexity of the bureaucracy that is the Brussels political union machine is a problem with the European Union. It is a problem that has been pointed out time and time again.

    As a software engineer - simple, clean solutions tend to be best. The European Union is no such solution. The answer it presents to every single problem is more unnecessary complexity in the name of further integration to God knows what. The answer is actually simplicity. It is always simplicity.
    Hey, software engineer, quick question for you: speaking of inherently complex bureaucracies, how do your propose the UK government solves the conundrum of replicating 32 certifying bodies within 18 months simply and cleanly?
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    This is a strawman. I acknowledge in full the importance of immigration into the UK. I just see that as a result of the referendum it needs to be controlled effectively. The structures of the European Union don't permit this. This can be controlled in a simple way by quotas for low skilled work and employment checks.
    The cheek:
    ambro25 wrote: »
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    ambro25 wrote: »
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)
    • Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
    To look at just one of your points, in the exact context you posit (EU economic migration): the maximum stay duration guaranteed by the EU in that context is 90 days if you can't support yourself independently. And that is enforced by many continental EU member states indeed. See e.g. here. That has been the situation for years and longer.

    So, 2 questions to you:

    (i) what has stopped the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, relevant new (and/or amendments to) immigration rules aimed at EU economic migrants and enforcing them -clearly in full compliance with EU law- for the past umpteen years?

    (ii) given the prevalent Parliamentary majority, what is still stopping the UK government from proposing, and Parliament enacting, such new (and/or amendments to) immigration rules aimed at EU economic migrants and enforcing them now?
    Good morning!

    Those are questions for the Cameron government and the Blair government and the Major government. I can't answer them because I don't know why they didn't do it. The May government is addressing Brexit.

    These controls aren't sufficient post-Brexit to satisfy the referendum result. I think at a minimum there needs to be quotas on low skilled and low wage labour.
    That is a fairly inelegant dodging of the issues raised.

    Do you want to try again, or can we consider my point conceded?
    Should have left you on ignore. My own fault.


  • #3356
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »

    Surrendering the decision as to whether or not to go to war at the other side of the world sounds like a serious loss of control to me.

    Something that isn't surrendered as part of being in NATO though


  • #3357
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    mountaintop wrote: »
    Another Frudean Slip: Continued undermining of MY nationality you say. What you really mean is your Britishness. Now, lest it be misunderstood, I've worked and lived in the U.K. myself. I admire Britain and have many British relatives and friends. That's not the issue.

    Good afternoon!

    This is inappropriate. If you want to have a respectful discussion then that entails respecting your interlocutor.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #3358
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,997 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Solo...do you accept that Brexit will likely damage Ireland?


  • #3359
    mountaintop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭mountaintop


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!

    This is inappropriate. If you want to have a respectful discussion then that entails respecting your interlocutor.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    Apologies, no wish to be disrespectful, all said in the heat of discussion, sitting around the table with pints of Guinness but without the Guinness. Here, will you have a small one with that? Arm around the shoulder, let's sing a rebel song!


  • #3360
    demfad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    I don't know why people are still discussing citizens rights. The UK have been clear that they want to give the same rights and privileges as British citizens bar voting in elections. If by "citizens rights" he means involving the ECJ directly, then that is a different issue. That's an issue of jurisdiction. There has been significant progress on citizens rights.

    There has been progress on the Northern Ireland border even if it can't be fully resolved until after October.

    However, there is an underlying assumption in your post. This negotiation isn't about the UK bending 100% to the EU's mandate. That actually isn't a negotiation by the definition of the word.

    If the EU seriously sees this negotiation as bend to our will or else, I think the UK should start preparing for no deal.     There's no point "negotiating" if the other party isn't willing to adopt reasonable principles.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    Please address the linked post in reply to you where I explain exactly why these exit talks DONT fit the strict definition of 'negotiation' and why a 'no-deal' is not something the UK should contemplate or threaten the EU with.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104742708&postcount=3313


  • Advertisement
  • #3361
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Hi everyone,
    Less of the personal stuff please. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

    Thank you.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement