Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

My point is there is a difference between progress and absolute agreement. Absolute agreement won't happen unless the EU is willing to compromise. The UK have offered some compromise but not a complete bending to the EU position.

If "sufficient progress" means absolute agreement with the EU then I would say Davis is wasting his time with unreasonable people. A negotiation involves some compromise on both sides. If the EU are unwilling to compromise this isn't a negotiation.

The UK have offered funding to cover a shortfall in the EU budget in exchange for transitional terms.

The UK have offered direct effect and direct right of appeal in the event of any modification to the legislation in respect to EU rights.

Paying carte blanche without transitional terms is unreasonable.

Becoming a vassal state of the ECJ after Brexit is also unreasonable.

There are ways to get through this impasse but it does require the EU to accept that it is unlikely that the UK will agree 100% with it's initial position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

At this point Solo, im struggling immensely to take you seriously when you continue to have pops using loaded terms like "Euro-federalist" over and over and also refuse to address serious substantial questions put to you about the UKs standing in the world Trading market especially with its supposed trading ally the United States.

can you come back to us when you have constructed a reasoned response to why its ok for the US on which you will rely heavily post brexit to threaten jobs on such a large scale ?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

What (-professional advice, presentations and other business considerations in Real Life™, besides free time correcting misunderstandings, misrepresentations and downright imbecility on fora threads such as this one in the UK) I have given a lot of since February 2016, was to defend against precisely what has been happening in Real Life™ since June 2016 (social division, rampant xenophobia, business uncertainty) and is presently coalescing, fully as expected: no overnight socio-economic Armageddon in June 2016 (or March 2019, or March 2021 for that matter), but a slow and protracted fading into economic insignificance bringing back Victorian era-like levels of social inequality with it.

Because I'd long lived in and was very invested in the UK, because I happen to have a social conscience and, to put it very simply, because I've "lived the EU" for 40-odd years now [EU born (EDIT: of different EU backgrounds, long before the EU was the EU), higher education EU funded in different EU states, moved jobs within the EU in different EU states several times, married a person from another EU country (different 1st language), working at all times with clients and suppliers across the EU <and beyond>] and, with a sufficiently-educated (i.e. -open) mind (which is most everybody in this day and age, I'd like to think), it's as natural as breathing.

So I'm putting my money and future exactly where my beliefs are: in the EU(27)

flatty wrote: »

Slight off topic, but very relevant personally, I'm now likely to sell out or wind up in the UK and move home (the company was a major local employer, but I'll not stay where I'm not wanted, and I want the kids to grow up in a modern European democracy)
My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

I'm in the exact same boat, flatty.

And, as with most everything else 'Brexit', it's still far too early to tell.

So "hope for best but plan for worst", wherein your planning should be based on your wife being a homemaker (-is currently the correct PC term , I believe ). At least to start with.

My £0.02 advice is for you to start getting a bit of a move on. Because it's still likely to become ever more of a rush as the clock keeps ticking down, with opportunities in the EU27 (besides 'pragmatics' like e.g. school places for incoming kids) shrinking in proportion over time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from.

Hi S, so would I to be honest. You an Irish citizen, living in the UK, voted remain according to your earlier posts.

ambro25 wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

What (-professional advice, presentations and other business considerations in Real Life™, besides free time correcting misunderstandings, misrepresentations and downright imbecility on fora threads such as this one in the UK) I have given a lot of since February 2016, was to defend against precisely what has been happening in Real Life™ since June 2016 (social division, rampant xenophobia, business uncertainty) and is presently coalescing, fully as expected: no overnight socio-economic Armageddon in June 2016 (or March 2019, or March 2021 for that matter), but a slow and protracted fading into economic insignificance bringing back Victorian era-like levels of social inequality with it.

Because I'd long lived in and was very invested in the UK, because I happen to have a social conscience and, to put it very simply, because I've "lived the EU" for 40-odd years now [EU born (EDIT: of different EU backgrounds, long before the EU was the EU), higher education EU funded in different EU states, moved jobs within the EU in different EU states several times, married a person from another EU country (different 1st language), working at all times with clients and suppliers across the EU

I have done. I'm looking at schools etc later this month. I've been approached about a very attractive job, but my wife is a highly skilled and experienced professional in her own right. If we move before brexit, and she has work, will it be taken off her post brexit even if she is married to a citizen?
She doesn't really want to move, but is appalled by brexit, and all that goes with it, by the craven and self serving nature of the sharp ends of both the tories and labour, and by the xenophobia encouraged by the leadership of both.
It's enough that she will finally move.
I pay a lot of tax, and am responsible for a lot of employment, and this will be lost to a greater or lesser extent to the UK.
Im seeing as an opportunity, as I've wanted to move home for ages, but we had a good life in the UK, and want for nothing, and it's a shame.
The uncertainty is the thing. I would hope that her employment would be secure, but clearly not.

jm08 wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

I think so. Have a look here.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/migrant_workers/employment_permits/spousal_work_permit_scheme.html

Thanks, but I'm irish, so I'm not sure that applies.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was the 1st doc that came up when I googled? Is it illegal to visit SF website or something?

I didn't say a border was in conflict with the GFA but I agree that Brexit contravenes the spirit of the GFA.

The spirit but not the letter. So that means we are all now in agreement that Brexit is not a breach of the GFA, nor will a hard border breach the GFA.

Of course, it can be argued that it will set back the peace process (and other such nonsense) but at least we can dispense with the idea that somehow there is a breach of the GFA.

One red herring gone.

blanch152 wrote: »

The spirit but not the letter. So that means we are all now in agreement that Brexit is not a breach of the GFA, nor will a hard border breach the GFA.

Of course, it can be argued that it will set back the peace process (and other such nonsense) but at least we can dispense with the idea that somehow there is a breach of the GFA.

One red herring gone.

Isn't that being tested through the court's?

Regardless, I know and can see how a hard border has the potential to wreck the work we have done since the signing of the GFA.

flatty wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

What (-professional advice, presentations and other business considerations in Real Life™, besides free time correcting misunderstandings, misrepresentations and downright imbecility on fora threads such as this one in the UK) I have given a lot of since February 2016, was to defend against precisely what has been happening in Real Life™ since June 2016 (social division, rampant xenophobia, business uncertainty) and is presently coalescing, fully as expected: no overnight socio-economic Armageddon in June 2016 (or March 2019, or March 2021 for that matter), but a slow and protracted fading into economic insignificance bringing back Victorian era-like levels of social inequality with it.

Because I'd long lived in and was very invested in the UK, because I happen to have a social conscience and, to put it very simply, because I've "lived the EU" for 40-odd years now [EU born (EDIT: of different EU backgrounds, long before the EU was the EU), higher education EU funded in different EU states, moved jobs within the EU in different EU states several times, married a person from another EU country (different 1st language), working at all times with clients and suppliers across the EU

I have done. I'm looking at schools etc later this month. I've been approached about a very attractive job, but my wife is a highly skilled and experienced professional in her own right. If we move before brexit, and she has work, will it be taken off her post brexit

(I fixed your quoting a bit in the above, it'd be nice if you did same in your original post )

On the work side, I guess that would depend on-

(i) how the actual 'flavour' of Brexiting interacts with the Irish legislation governing her entitlement to work in Ireland, plus
(ii) Irish legislation governing employment relations themselves; and
(iii) what her qualifications <etc.> are for her professional role, plus
(iv) again how the actual 'flavour' of Brexiting interacts with the Irish legislation governing recognition of those qualifications post-Brexit.

To give you an example: I'm EU (not UK or Irish), with Irish, UK and European professional qualifications for two 'sides' of my professional role.

Even though based in the UK, I'm currently on two Irish professional register, because the Irish legislation stipulates that if I'm Irish-qualified and EEA-based, I can.

I'm also on one EU(28) register, because the European (EU) legislation stipulates that if I'm EU(28)-qualified and EU(28)-based, I can (and since I'm Irish-qualified and the UK is in the EU, I can).

Post-Brexit hwoever, if the actual flavour of Brexit sees the UK outside the EEA, I would then fail to meet the (respective) requirements of the Irish and the European legislation, and therefore be kicked off both the Irish and the EU(28) registers for that 'side' of my role.

But since I'm not UK-qualified for that particular 'side' of my role, then if I was currently employed in the UK solely for that 'side' of my role and stayed in the UK post-Brexit, I could very well lose my job (or, at least, have to take whatever financial penalties <etc.> are associated with losing the professional 'badge').

As it is, if the UK Brexit out of the EEA and if I stay in the UK, I'll be left with half a job (the other 'side' which is composed of the UK and the other European (non-EU) professional qualifications). I doubt I'd lose my job, but as the loss of the above 'side' extends to the entire UK service industry in which I work (losing the EU work), contraction is inevitable, so there is a very strong likelihood of financial penalties <etc.> associated with losing the professional 'badge' in the UK regardless.

And that's besides any leverage gained by the UK side of my firm against me as an (EU national) employee, depending on the strings attaching to that fabled "settled 'status" (...assuming I even get that to begin with: it's still a long-a55 line of unknowns as you can tell, and there's now about 12 months to go).

Now, subject to whatever it is your wife does and on the basis of what professional qualifications, try and apply the above 'in reverse' for her situation in Ireland.

flatty wrote: »

even if she is married to a citizen?

It's a tad over 9 years since we left the Big Smoke, so I'm not current on Ireland's regime for non-EU immigration and family reunion provisions. But in the UK, it's only the salary of the UK resident with relevant entitlement (Brit or EU national) that counts towards the MIR calculation. And there is plenty of (recent) press about how hard the UK has been making it for families with different nationalities of which one is non-EU.

flatty wrote: »

She doesn't really want to move, but is appalled by brexit, and all that goes with it, by the craven and self serving nature of the sharp ends of both the tories and labour, and by the xenophobia encouraged by the leadership of both. It's enough that she will finally move.

Same here.

flatty wrote: »

I pay a lot of tax, and am responsible for a lot of employment, and this will be lost to a greater or lesser extent to the UK.

Same here.

flatty wrote: »

Im seeing as an opportunity, as I've wanted to move home for ages, but we had a good life in the UK, and want for nothing, and it's a shame.
The uncertainty is the thing. I would hope that her employment would be secure, but clearly not.

Same here. Genuinely. It's uncanny...But I guess these circumstances will be common to many more 'EU couples' than we can even imagine.

listermint wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/915545844434309120/video/1


F..Off ?


Sorry it was too amusing not to include. Opens up a discussion about how they can get nothing right presently.

Another letter fell off as well after. Talk about a joke of a security set up that someone can get that close to May at their party conference. Also took security an age to actually remove him. They have a lot to learn from the USA and how it secures its president.

blanch152 wrote: »

The spirit but not the letter. So that means we are all now in agreement that Brexit is not a breach of the GFA, nor will a hard border breach the GFA.

Of course, it can be argued that it will set back the peace process (and other such nonsense) but at least we can dispense with the idea that somehow there is a breach of the GFA.

One red herring gone.

Far from gone. For example Irish citizens in NI are entitled to Irish and thus EU citizenship under the GFA. If the UK leaving the EU removes the rights these citizens enjoy then that is a potential breach of the GFA.

Havockk wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

I expect as usual that NI will not be very high on the list of priorities.

I'm almost certain that May never once mentioned NI in her speech today.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

Why did you vote remain?
That simple fact completely devalues any and all arguments you now make.

Most Tories are embarrassed with the links to the DUP so she is not going to highlight NI in any conference speech. It's a short marriage of convenience and anything to keep Corbyn out. The speech was a shambles from start to finish. It was like one of those Disney films where everything goes wrong at a school play and everyone either cries or laughs.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You can nitpick and state that the GFA doesn't mention this or that but this is neither here nor there. The GFA was an encoding of a set of principles, it cannot mention in detail everything for all time. What is perfectly clear is that any harassment of people crossing the border is a breach of the peace settlement, whatever legal trickery is used to justify this by reference to the exact wording of the GFA, and this is as true of Dublin government doing it as the British.

If the IRA came along and started using cyber warfare against the British and argued that the GFA didn't mention anything about this, would you agree that this did not present a problem because it wasn't explicitly mentioned?

how is a (potential) customs checkpoint "harassment"?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

I've thought long and hard about replying to this because to be honest, I don't think you really understand what some people - certainly not what I - think about the European Union. I also don't believe you can be persuaded as otherwise you wouldn't have called it the Euro-federalist programme.

But first things first. You've made the assumption that all people posting and replying to you are male. They are not. I'm female and to be honest, I'm find it depressing in this day and age that you assume that all interlocutors on a message board either all male. I realise you work in IT but so do I and frankly, you have no excuse.

The primary reason I feel like responding to this is less for your benefit and perhaps for the benefit of other people.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is there is a difference between progress and absolute agreement. Absolute agreement won't happen unless the EU is willing to compromise. The UK have offered some compromise but not a complete bending to the EU position.

Strictly speaking, the country which requires compromise is the UK. The EU is more likely to survive Brexit than the UK is. For me, it is hard to see that the UK has offered any compromise because to be honest, they haven't offered much in the way of concrete proposals, never mind movement on them. We know that there are a number of red lines, apparently, on the UK side.

They are red lines that are actually not in the UK's interests. I don't know if you get this, but fine. We are at the stage right now where you might argue that the UK, in agreeing (sort of, without any practical details, taking it for granted that they will receive) that in fact, transition would be nice, is a concession. It isn't. The party who needs a transition phase here is the UK. In fact, if you were to be completely honest, economically, the UK probably needs to stay in the EU but based on this thread, two things will likely happen here a) you'll deny it and make some comments about trade deals or b) ignore it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If "sufficient progress" means absolute agreement with the EU then I would say Davis is wasting his time with unreasonable people. A negotiation involves some compromise on both sides. If the EU are unwilling to compromise this isn't a negotiation.

These negotiations are happening at the level of details and actually identifying what has to be done. Currently, the UK's contribution on Northern Ireland has been wishful thinking about not complying with WTO regulations on a border which per one of their own red lines means that one side will be in the single market and one side will not. There has been discussion about drones. Blue sky thinking. Number plate reading. There is nothing actually tangible here at the level of detail which is required to make anything happen. It's as though someone said "I want a computer system which will do stuff" but no one actually tells you what the stuff is.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have offered funding to cover a shortfall in the EU budget in exchange for transitional terms.

TBH - and I have said this before - this is not so much an offer as something which would be a basic requirement. Again, the transition is in the UK's interest much more than the EU interest. Otherwise they wouldn't be asking for one.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have offered direct effect and direct right of appeal in the event of any modification to the legislation in respect to EU rights.

Really? EU rights are dealt with by the ECJ. I thought that this was off the table as one of May's red lines. I don't see this as a concession. A concession is recognising that the ECJ is the correct court here. I've written before about issues with enforcement of court orders in the UK when the party in contempt is the Home Office.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Paying carte blanche without transitional terms is unreasonable.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Becoming a vassal state of the ECJ after Brexit is also unreasonable.

This too is a bit meaningless.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are ways to get through this impasse but it does require the EU to accept that it is unlikely that the UK will agree 100% with it's initial position.

The problem, solo, is that the UK doesn't even have a coherent position. It keeps changing, depending on whether you talk to May, Davis, or latterly, Johnson who seems to think he is PM and not FS. Yesterday's speech to the Tory party conference by the way, does not indicate that Johnson is on top of his job at all.

But anyway. You voted remain and yet you have all this leave rhetoric at your finger tips.

I like the European Union for a lot of reasons. I grew in up in a country which is one of the most open trading economies in the world now but it was extremely insular and parochial when I was at school. Like a lot of people, I was fortunate enough to receive Erasmus funding in the very early days and this enabled me to study in foreign countries. I studied in Germany. In the interim, I also worked in France, the UK, Belgium and I studied for a short while in Finland as well after it joined in 1995. I've paid college fees in the UK and I've voted there. I've paid taxes in all of those countries except Finland unless you count VAT and excise which you can't avoid if you want to make someone an Irish coffee and didn't bring a bottle of Jameson with you.

I think, when I read your posts, that what I sense more than Leave rhetoric is privilege. You are in the UK, you have the right to vote there. Certain other rights are guaranteed to you by EU legislation and you assume you will never need those rights. One of the best things that the EU brought with it for people was the right to establishment anywhere in the EU provided certain conditions were met. You and many people like you take those conditions for granted in the UK because you're Irish. And you also take it for granted that Brexit won't change the rights you've enjoyed. I find it quite selfish. I think if you were in the same position as many French people, many Polish people who settled in the UK and, broadly, paid their way in the UK - the EU cohort in the UK are more than self financing - your view would be different.

I'm not sure that voicing a view that Irish people who have jobs in the UK who are voicing pro-Brexit opinions are fundamentally self-centred is going to convince you of anything. You don't engage with many of the comments I make.

The thing is, compared to 25 years ago when I graduated college for the first time, the one thing that the EU has done is broadened the experience of many, many people. Not just the French and the Polish. The British are notoriously awful at learning languages - they are worse on average than the Irish are and god knows many of my compatriots are not good. This also means that they are massively disadvantaged when it comes to knowing the heart of other peoples. There's a famous quote attributed to Mandela:

If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.

which I think is important here. The European Union hasn't just been about money, or economics or trade. It's been about people. It has been about their hearts. Their lives. Their loves. Other people have reached into the hearts of many Britons even if Britons have not engaged in learning foreign languages with much gusto.

My life would be very different if the EU had not existed. I might not have studied languages. I might have spent my life living in Dublin. There are people in my life both past and present, the lack of whom would have made me a lesser person. Opportunities have come my way because of freedom of movement, and various policies of the EU in its various guises to foster connections between the different peoples of Europe. I am absolutely certain that my life would have been the poorer for the lack of it and the freedoms and rights it has conferred upon me. That you think you don't benefit from them or don't need to benefit from them in the UK because you're Irish and not, for example French so the risk to you is so much less doesn't change the impact that this has. If the UK is serious about walking away from FOM, this affects thousands of young British people who want that chance. I posted yesterday that I had met some of them. There is a callous disregard for their interests too Yes, there is a lot of discussion about the EU citizens, but it seems to me to be forgotten that many British people are losing out here too.

The EU and its admin are not perfect. It is, and has always been, in a constant state of evolution. Even if Brexit never happened, I can guarantee that the EU as it is now would be different to the EU as it will be in 10 years' time, and is different to how things were 10 years ago. More ownership of the process has moved to the Parliament which gives the inhabitants of the constituent states of the EU more of a say and more influence in what happens.

But no administration is perfect and few if any states in the world are in a state of unchanging stasis.

I don't believe I can change your mind because only you can do that.

blanch152 wrote: »

(rhow can something be still a process twenty years on?.

Because it was meant to be.

The executive is in tatters as a result of the 'process' stalling.