Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph · 21-10-2017 12:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's more than 'slightly less worse', given an MP was talking about British troops on the border only this week.
A land border is a 'dissident's charter' or starter for ten. And if that kicks off, nobody knows where it will end.

The British will do the absolute bare minimum on their side to keep the WTO happy that tariffs are being correctly levied. There is zero chance of security checkpoints where private cars are stopped on the British side. It's far more likely the Irish side will be more secure tbh.

You don't believe everything British MPs say I'm sure.

First Up · 21-10-2017 12:36PM

Aegir wrote:

If 60% of Rochdale voted leave and the majority of people in rochdale identify as Asian then surely a lot of people werenâ€™t voting to keep out non eu migrants.

I suspect Asians who voted for Brexit did so to keep out the Polish etc competition -smart.

I suspect some British Brexiteers didn't understand the difference between EU and non-EU immigration - stupid.

FrancieBrady · 21-10-2017 12:50PM

murphaph wrote: »

The British will do the absolute bare minimum on their side to keep the WTO happy that tariffs are being correctly levied. There is zero chance of security checkpoints where private cars are stopped on the British side. It's far more likely the Irish side will be more secure tbh.

You don't believe everything British MPs say I'm sure.

What makes you think there is 'zero chance'?

What do both governments do if border posts and officials come under fire/attack, send workers out unprotected?

It isn't difficult to see a situation escalate very very quickly. Starting when they try to construct infrastructure.
Personally looking at the mood along the border at the moment I can see peaceful protest against the building of these checkpoints forming already.

steddyeddy · 21-10-2017 01:03PM

Interesting article from the FT indicating that the EU don't want to push May too hard lest a Eurosceptic be in charge of the Tories.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/9ff65598-b5af-11e7-aa26-bb002965bce8

Enzokk · 21-10-2017 01:05PM

I see that there are reports the EU has promised the UK there will be no physical border on the island of Ireland. I fail to see how they could promise this to the UK without knowing detailed plans on what relationship the UK wants with the EU. The story I read did say it was reported by Theresa May that this is what the EU has said though. Leo Varadkar reports that Theresa May said there would be no border but that there were once again no details offered by the UK.

But the EU council did pass the ball back to the UK to provide the "flexible and imaginitive" solution for NI and Ireland.

Theresa May: 'UK and EU agree there should be no physical infrastructure at border in Ireland'

I have a few concerns about this though. I agree on what should happen, but that doesn't mean it will. I have a feeling that this issue may be a powder keg that could blow up the negotiations and/or the UK Government. What does NI want? No-one knows as there is no executive and while we know what one party wants we don't know about the rest. If the UK pursues an avenue that is against what the DUP wants regarding the border then the UK may need new election sooner rather than later.

If they go along with the DUP solution then how does that square with the majority of voters in Northern Ireland? This is a mess, but at least there seems to be some movement and at least there is talks on the border. I think though that this will be even more contentious than the brexit bill and this could delay even longer the start of trade talks. The UK focused on the wrong issue from the start and will regret not paying more attention to the border and EU citizens rights instead of quibbling line for line about the commitments they have agreed to.

Europe agrees no physical border between Republic of Ireland and the North, says Theresa May

In its closing statement, it said this would have to take into account avoidance of a hard border, but it placed the onus on the UK to present and commit to "flexible and imaginative" solutions.

Sand · 21-10-2017 01:16PM

The EU may not want to undermine May, but she is already teetering and seems to lack the authority or conviction to face down the Tory lunatic fringe. I don't see how it ends other than May resigning, or going for a ultra hard Brexit to try buy a few more months in power. Tory brexit policy is under a terrible inertia.

I think the only way for May to get out of the corner she has painted herself into is by seeking some form of cross-party support with Labour and the LibDems to get enough moderate, soft brexit MPs to secure a parliamentary majority on brexit terms. It could also offer her political cover for abandoning stupid red lines. The Tory lunatic fringe would be livid, but would they topple the government to invite in Corbyn instead?

I don't think May will go for it though, I don't think she has the charisma to pull it off and I don't think Labour would respond positively. They would likely see it as an opportunity to kick the chair out from under May, hoping for an early election. But its the only way I see the British position breaking free of its current trajectory.

Ultimately though, attempts by the EU to go easy on May only delay the inevitable. She is getting weaker and weaker, not stronger. There's no advantage to giving her time.

solodeogloria · 21-10-2017 01:50PM

Good afternoon!

listermint wrote: »

So tell me again how under EU rules immigration cant 'really' be controlled.
I mean details specific details.
.

Gerry T wrote: »

You have that control at present. Mentioned umpteen times in this thread. The UK can remove EU migrants that don't secure work

I don't know why you both ask this question when I've already answered it.

Immigration can't be controlled effectively under EU rules. I'd agree with you that the 6 month limit may help, but it wouldn't stop an oversupply of labour in certain sectors undercutting wages. That's the real issue that you highlighted in the quote you posted.

The 6 month limit isn't effective if you want to prevent against an oversupply of labour in particular sectors. To address this concern properly you need to have quotas to give priority to British workers in contested sectors. This isn't permitted whilst being a member of the EU.

Brexit is now happening. There's not much point of trying to argue against it because it is an inevitability. What is important is to argue for the best exit arrangement possible.

Rehashing the referendum debate from last year is in my mind not particularly helpful given this reality.

Gerry T wrote: »

Just catching up on the thread and came to this nugget.
This really sums up the disconnect from both sides.
You seem to think that the Bill is like a divorce, husband leaves and wife gets the house and half the bank account. That's NOT what the other side think IMO.
The "bill" or "divorce fee" is neither a bill or fee. The UK has committed to paying projects, it also owes monies to people that are going on pension/drawing pensions for services to the UK for the past 40yrs. The EU is trying to get agreement from the UK on what portion of these costs the UK will pay. Let's make up a case, say 24,428 civil servants the EU may say 5,000 have been there for the uk, then the UK demonstrates it's actually 2,000. If agreed then the pension costs for the next 20, 30 or 40 yrs is paid for those people by the UK. Or an actuary works out the current value and that's paid to the EU today and the EU pays the peoples pensions that worked for the UK for 40 yrs.
What your suggesting is, if the EU doesn't give the UK the deal they want then the UK won't pay anything????
Don't you see how dishonest that would be. People that work in Europe looking after the UKs interests for decades end up with no pension?

Brexit and the settlement payment is wrapped together, one and the same thing. They need to be settled together, with the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and the Irish border.

Any trade discussions are secondary to separating. Both groups want to trade with each other so a deal will be struck, one that benefits both. But the UK is the minor partner, so shouldn't expect the same terms the EU will get.

My point is that there are two perspectives on what is happening. There is the EU one, and there is the British one. Both are important because if a reasonable arrangement is to be struck it'll have to find support in the UK and not just in the EU.

Here in Britain people aren't willing to give a huge sum of money to the European Union with no concession in return. There is a high risk that if the other side of the deal isn't good enough for Britain that Theresa May won't get this through parliament.

Also, it shouldn't be assumed that just because the EU thinks Britain should pay for something that it should. The UK is rightfully going through each item line by line with a legal team to ensure that the UK should pay for the things that the EU claim it should.

Sand wrote: »

Good morning!

That's very harsh. I admire Solo for his persistent engagement on the topic where he adds so much. He is clearly extremely genuine and well informed.

Completely off topic, but have you ever googled Ken M?

Much thanks,
sand

This made me smile, thank you!

Nody wrote: »

And people are still grossly uninformed about what Brexit actually means if only 45% think a no deal is bad for UK.

And since Solo is such a huge fan of democracy here's what the Brexiteers are planning to ensure their vision is delivered:
So since they are afraid of losing a vote in parliament they want to yet again circumvent the democratically voted MPs and simply rule by making a bad deal behind everyone's back to get their way. UK democracy in action.

I don't know why you insist on invoking my name here. I'm primarily hoping for a good deal with the EU. I think obviously no deal needs to be an option in the scenario that the EU are not willing to provide a good deal to the UK.

The European Council this week gives me hope that there will be progress.

murphaph wrote: »

I don't see any need for boardings if there was a customs border in the Irish sea. It still throws NI under the bus as most of their output heads to GB but it is better for the RoI than a land border and we have to put ourselves first in this like the UK has.

The reason we want the border to remain open is primarily for Northern Ireland and not for the Republic. Decimating Northern Ireland's economy is not an option that anyone should support. The UK won't accept any arrangement that undermines the union so there's not really any point proposing this as a serious scenario.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 21-10-2017 03:07PM

Sand wrote: »

The Tory lunatic fringe would be livid, but would they topple the government to invite in Corbyn instead?

This whole Brexit mess is about who would lead the Tory party.

There's no shortage of people who'd like to be leader of the Tory party, if they could only get away without being blamed for shafting the whole country.

All they need is a fall guy. And the fall guy might just win too.

"I would rather be first in a village than second in Rome".

murphaph · 21-10-2017 04:12PM

Solo, if Northern Ireland was anything other than an afterthought in England then Brexit would not have won.

Read the comments sections of the mail etc and half the English nationalists on there would gladly dispense with NI altogether!

steddyeddy · 21-10-2017 04:24PM

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, if Northern Ireland was anything other than an afterthought in England then Brexit would not have won.

Read the comments sections of the mail etc and half the English nationalists on there would gladly dispense with NI altogether!

Let's not forget that NI voted to remain. May also has little regard for the GFA and the required "rigorous impartiality".

The Rape of Lucretia · 21-10-2017 04:37PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Let's not forget that NI voted to remain. May also has little regard for the GFA and the required "rigorous impartiality".

Lets not forget either that they voted to Brexit as part of the UK.
If they were truly more interested in Remaining rather Brexiting, they would be Referenduming on secession.

Firblog · 21-10-2017 04:45PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Brexit really is the UK's lowest moment, and must be a contender for any modern countries most stupidly selfharming mis-use of its democracy. Germany in 1933 perhaps. Its in that range of cockup.

Do you really think this?

I think they grasped their last chance at restoring democracy in the UK, whereby they would be governed by those they voted for; not some mismash of failed politicians (commission) and a committee (council of leaders) only one of whom had their interests at heart.
The UK has been dragged down the road to 'ever closer union' aka franco/german domination for years, and the referendum was their escape route, none of their leaders have had the where with all to draw the line in the sand, and so the people did when given the opportunity.

Lets face it, the EU as it is currently set up is no lover of democracy, and hasn't been for more than 20 years, when countries sign up for it, the people they send have to leave their democratic principles at the door of the meeting room

steddyeddy · 21-10-2017 04:49PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Lets not forget either that they voted to Brexit as part of the UK.
If they were truly more interested in Remaining rather Brexiting, they would be Referenduming on secession.

I don't think that the UK can survive if the democratic wishes of every country in the union, I.E scotland and NI.

steddyeddy · 21-10-2017 04:49PM

Firblog wrote: »

Do you really think this?

I think they grasped their last chance at restoring democracy in the UK, whereby they would be governed by those they voted for; not some mismash of failed politicians (commission) and a committee (council of leaders) only one of whom had their interests at heart.
The UK has been dragged down the road to 'ever closer union' aka franco/german domination for years, and the referendum was their escape route, none of their leaders have had the where with all to draw the line in the sand, and so the people did when given the opportunity.

Lets face it, the EU as it is currently set up is no lover of democracy, and hasn't been for more than 20 years, when countries sign up for it, the people they send have to leave their democratic principles at the door of the meeting room

NI and Scotland voted to remain. Do you think they should seek independence.

Firblog · 21-10-2017 04:58PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

NI and Scotland voted to remain. Do you think they should seek independence.

What good would that do them? Did the EU say that if the people of Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be outside the EU and would have to apply for admission? And the same will apply to any country/region that gains independence from a current member?

First Up · 21-10-2017 05:00PM

Firblog wrote:

What good would that do them? Did the EU say that if the people of Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be outside the EU and would have to apply for admission?

If they were independent now, they could apply for admission - an option not available to them. How's that for democracy?

steddyeddy · 21-10-2017 05:04PM

Firblog wrote: »

What good would that do them? Did the EU say that if the people of Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be outside the EU and would have to apply for admission? And the same will apply to any country/region that gains independence from a current member?

Well you said democracy is upmost importance. Now you're saying that becoming independent would be bad because they wouldn't be in the EU. What good will Brexit do them?

Dont be at yourself · 21-10-2017 05:35PM

Firblog wrote: »

Do you really think this?

I think they grasped their last chance at restoring democracy in the UK, whereby they would be governed by those they voted for; not some mismash of failed politicians (commission) and a committee (council of leaders) only one of whom had their interests at heart.
The UK has been dragged down the road to 'ever closer union' aka franco/german domination for years, and the referendum was their escape route, none of their leaders have had the where with all to draw the line in the sand, and so the people did when given the opportunity.

Lets face it, the EU as it is currently set up is no lover of democracy, and hasn't been for more than 20 years, when countries sign up for it, the people they send have to leave their democratic principles at the door of the meeting room

Yes, give me The House of Lords any day! Never mind the collapse of Stormont, the power of the monarchy, or the West Lothian question...

Firblog · 21-10-2017 05:48PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well you said democracy is upmost importance. Now you're saying that becoming independent would be bad because they wouldn't be in the EU. What good will Brexit do them?

That's not what I said at all, I was asked if I thought they should vote for independence, on the basis that they had voted to remain. I didn't refer to it being 'good' or 'bad', as all that depends on what the voters in those countries deem to be important, immigration, economy etc

They cannot remain no matter what they do now. If they go independent, then they ask to join the EU, they will not be joining on the conditions they have membership now.

steddyeddy · 21-10-2017 05:59PM

Firblog wrote: »

That's not what I said at all, I was asked if I thought they should vote for independence, on the basis that they had voted to remain. I didn't refer to it being 'good' or 'bad', as all that depends on what the voters in those countries deem to be important, immigration, economy etc

They cannot remain no matter what they do now. If they go independent, then they ask to join the EU, they will not be joining on the conditions they have membership now.

Great well then you'll agree a country being dragged out of the EU against its will is anti-democratic?

The Rape of Lucretia · 21-10-2017 06:06PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Great well then you'll agree a country being dragged out of the EU against its will is anti-democratic?

No country is being dragged out of the eu against its will. The UK chose to leave.

ezra_pound · 21-10-2017 06:21PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No country is being dragged out of the eu against its will. The UK chose to leave.

Is the UK a country? A nation?

Firblog · 21-10-2017 06:26PM

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

Yes, give me The House of Lords any day! Never mind the collapse of Stormont, the power of the monarchy, or the West Lothian question...

this is your response to my post on 'democracy' in the EU? Which effects us all? You point out some things in the UK that you think are what? Not democratic?

House of lords? How about our Senate? European Commission?

The collapse of Stormont? That's the way it was designed, you probably voted for it, so perhaps you should own it.

The west lothian question? What effect does that have on anything?

First Up · 21-10-2017 06:33PM

Firblog wrote:

They cannot remain no matter what they do now. If they go independent, then they ask to join the EU, they will not be joining on the conditions they have membership now.

Wanna bet?

Firblog · 21-10-2017 06:41PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Great well then you'll agree a country being dragged out of the EU against its will is anti-democratic?

But a country that did vote to leave being forced to stay is?

Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England, are not members of the EU, the United Kingdom is. The people of the UK voted to join the EEC, and now the people of the same country/member have voted to leave the EU.

The people of Scotland reaffirmed their place as part of the UK just a year earlier, knowing how the system in the UK worked; and in the general election the party advocating independence & remaining in the EU lost 21 out of 56 MP's and dropped it's popular vote by 1/3rd. That hardly demonstrates a huge groundswell of voters wanting either independence or to remain in the EU.

Firblog · 21-10-2017 06:42PM

First Up wrote: »

Wanna bet?

On which part?

ancapailldorcha · 21-10-2017 07:34PM

First Up wrote: »

Wanna bet?

Firblog wrote: »

On which part?

Less of this nonsense please.

carrickbally · 21-10-2017 07:45PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The reason we want the border to remain open is primarily for Northern Ireland and not for the Republic. Decimating Northern Ireland's economy is not an option that anyone should support. The UK won't accept any arrangement that undermines the union so there's not really any point proposing this as a serious scenario.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

By voting for Brexit the people of England de-facto voted to decimate the Northern Ireland economy.

By voting for Brexit the people of England de-facto voted to undermine the unity of the UK.

If they ignored these facts in their blind racism that shows how stupid and venomous the Brexit vote was.

steddyeddy · 21-10-2017 07:59PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No country is being dragged out of the eu against its will. The UK chose to leave.

The UK is a kingdom. The coutries of Scotland and NI voted remain and are being dragged out of the EU. Not democratic.

carrickbally · 21-10-2017 08:57PM

The impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland is going to be severe.

The problem is the English who voted for Brexit do not care.

Some are actually enjoying the fact

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments