Brexit discussion thread II

J Mysterio · 02-12-2017 03:54AM

Was out in the Harbour Bar in Bray tonight. Met two lovely girls from Belfast who volunteered that they were Protestant. They were down for their Christmas shopping, as they do every year. I asked them their opinion on Brexit, they were in favour of the sea border.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2017 07:18AM

Sand wrote: »

But instead we get... well, you know.

The advantage of having solo in the thread is that he is closely mimicking the Brexit wing of the Tory party. I don't know why he is doing that, but you can see him quoting the talking points - the settlement is payment for access, no deal is better than a bad deal etc. etc.

These points are, on the face of it, rank lunacy of the most bizarre kind, things that no Leave campaigner dared to say before the referendum, but now perhaps half the UK Government party is pushing them.

Without solo's script-reading, we would not be exposed here to the mad thinking of the Brexiteers at all.

And no, I am not suggesting that solo is mad or a Tory backbencher. He is simply reading from their talking points for some reason of his own, whether that is contrarianism, the zeal of the convert, or one of demfad's favourite explanations.

mickoneill31 · 02-12-2017 07:19AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/936644971372929024

https://twitter.com/donaldtusk/status/936648747630592000

I'd say the Mail / Express / Telegraph / Sun headlines will be interesting this weekend.

*Note: Still not informed or accurate.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2017 07:27AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Thank this guy and his merry band of followers.

... image of Farage deleted for your sanity...

UKIP couldn't have done it alone. Huge numbers of Tory and Labour voters voted leave. The Remain campaign was pathetic, and neither of the big parties really believe in Europe.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2017 07:28AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ich bin ein Federalist.

Ich too.

CalamariFritti · 02-12-2017 08:37AM

MBSnr wrote: »

That's the weird thing. The Leave posters aren't idiots at all (no more than the Remainers), but the opinions they submit are not based on much fact, just personal ill informed opinion

I know a number of Leavers (Irish family in the UK [bizarrely] and a good few acquaintances) and they are not in any means stupid people. However their views are strangely skewed and they voted Leave for a myriad of reasons, but in talking to them, it would appear that they took their 'information' on Brexit solely from the right wing media. An aunt from Ireland and an Australian (with a Danish passport) voted Leave due to too many immigrants... Go figure the irony.

I was mentioning to a few people over there when visiting last summer, that the border would be an issue and it was completely dismissed as the fella living in Ireland talking sh-1-te

It is a strange phenomenon that I observed back in my home country too. Sometimes immigrants are against immigrantion. Maybe they feel more immigration would fuel controversy which may threaten their own status.

Panrich · 02-12-2017 09:42AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/936644971372929024

https://twitter.com/donaldtusk/status/936648747630592000

There has been a huge amount of engagement in the past few days between all sides. Simon Coveney was reported yesterday in the Guardian as saying that a deal was still doable and that he had met directly with DUP. He mentioned that their views are important but they can’t have a veto on progress.

All of these media releases are carefully choreographed at this stage. It can be fun to decipher them.

This tells me that the UK:/DUP in their meetings with Dublin have not believed that we are acting solely on our interests but being dictated to by Brussels. Sammy Wilson said as much on TV3 the other night.

These statements firmly rebut that. It also shows that we are nowhere near agreement yet.

Tick Tock.

Tropheus · 02-12-2017 09:56AM

Sobering article in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/the-brexit-climbdown-is-far-from-what-leaving-was-meant-to-look-like

Tropheus · 02-12-2017 09:57AM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I'd say the Mail / Express / Telegraph / Sun headlines will be interesting this weekend.

*Note: Still not informed or accurate.

The EU are backing a member state in favour of one that wants to leave. Who would have thought.....

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 10:02AM

Tropheus wrote: »

The EU are backing a member state in favour of one that wants to leave. Who would have thought.....

Good morning!

I've not really heard a good explanation so far as to why a sea border is a good option for the Republic in any case. It definitely isn't a good option for Northern Ireland with most trade by far going to the UK.

I'm going to be interested to see what's concluded in any case. I'm not fully convinced by the binary logic of sea border versus land border either admittedly.

Edit: on a more humorous note maybe the UK can keep its Doner kebabs! :pac:

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL-- · 02-12-2017 10:05AM

It doesn't seem to matter as much, chatter now is the UK as a whole will retain regulatory convergence with the EU.

Nate

mickoneill31 · 02-12-2017 10:07AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've not really heard a good explanation so far as to why a sea border is a good option for the Republic in any case. It definitely isn't a good option for Northern Ireland with most trade by far going to the UK.

I'm going to be interested to see what's concluded in any case. I'm not fully convinced by the binary logic of sea border versus land border either admittedly.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No border is a good option for Ireland. But we are where we are.

We have three choices.
No border.
Land border.
Sea border.

Now we have to make the best of a crap situation. If there was a real choice we'd have no border between these two islands. Just we can't figure out how to do that with all of the British Red lines.

Neither are a good option for the north either. But we have to worry about Ireland first.

The best the British have come up with is a requirement for imaginative thinking. And apparently it's up to the eu to do the thinking.

Akrasia · 02-12-2017 10:13AM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

No border is a good option for Ireland. But we are where we are.

We have three choices.
No border.
Land border.
Sea border

It's actually
No border
Sea border only
Land border and Sea Border

from the republics perspective.

Dont be at yourself · 02-12-2017 10:25AM

It's also incredibly myopic to suggest that the only reason we're lobbying for no border is because of trade. Do people really have such short memories?

Panrich · 02-12-2017 10:26AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've not really heard a good explanation so far as to why a sea border is a good option for the Republic in any case. It definitely isn't a good option for Northern Ireland with most trade by far going to the UK.

I'm going to be interested to see what's concluded in any case. I'm not fully convinced by the binary logic of sea border versus land border either admittedly.

Edit: on a more humorous note maybe the UK can keep its Doner kebabs! :pac:

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

We were always going to be hit badly as collateral damage in this great folly. The fact that we’d be responsible for maintaining a border with so many crossings and the associated cost of manning it effectively adds insult to the injury. If we can avoid that scenario, it moves the headache to more manageable on our side as well as maintaining cross border cooperation.

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 10:35AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The advantage of having solo in the thread is that he is closely mimicking the Brexit wing of the Tory party. I don't know why he is doing that, but you can see him quoting the talking points - the settlement is payment for access, no deal is better than a bad deal etc. etc.

These points are, on the face of it, rank lunacy of the most bizarre kind, things that no Leave campaigner dared to say before the referendum, but now perhaps half the UK Government party is pushing them.

Without solo's script-reading, we would not be exposed here to the mad thinking of the Brexiteers at all.

And no, I am not suggesting that solo is mad or a Tory backbencher. He is simply reading from their talking points for some reason of his own, whether that is contrarianism, the zeal of the convert, or one of demfad's favourite explanations.

Good morning!

I simply agree that the UK should get on with leaving and get it over with. There's obvious opportunity outside if it is done rightly. I'm keen to make sure that Brexit is done in the right way which is why I prefer a negotiated agreement to no deal. There's nothing "mad" about seeing advantages in leaving the EU and seeing disadvantages in remaining in a bloc with ambitions to take more and more and more control from member states. Juncker's State of the Union address was a big wake up call in that regard. When I voted remain in 2016, I wasn't voting for the status quo like I thought I was.

I'm not mimicking anything that I don't hold to myself. On the payment a trade off for trade terms, this is how it is widely seen in Britain. I appreciate that the European Commission may have a different view, but the UK isn't agreeing this without seeking to get anything out of it. On the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed we have some way to go before payments will be made. And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

I'm happy to admit that I've voted Conservative in the last two general elections. I've wavered in London Assembly, local council and mayoral elections. (voted for Khan last time but Johnson before that, and Liberal Democrat for London Assembly) It seems that this may be a hangable offence on this forum :pac:

As for demfad's idea that I might be a Kremlin agent (is that what he's claiming? :pac:), one of the moderators can see that I've been based in the UK pretty much continually apart from the odd holiday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 02-12-2017 10:44AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've not really heard a good explanation so far as to why a sea border is a good option for the Republic in any case. It definitely isn't a good option for Northern Ireland with most trade by far going to the UK.

I'm going to be interested to see what's concluded in any case. I'm not fully convinced by the binary logic of sea border versus land border either admittedly.

Seriously? The advantage of a sea border is that it avoids a land border.

A land border inflicts signficant harm on both sides of the border - economic, social, political. A sea border avoids all that.

A sea border isn't the only way to avoid that. It could equally be avoided by the UK not Brexiting, or by the UK remaining the single market and the customs union, or even by the UK retaining substantial regulatory equivalence with the EU, and making a good trade deal. So the reason a sea border comes up as an idea is that it protects the Republic and, to some extent, NI from (much of) the harm that would result from a land border, while allowing the UK substantially to achieve its objectives with respect to leaving the single market, etc, at least as regards GB. It's not a perfect solution but, then, compromises never are.

You're correct that NI/GB trade will be hampered but, unfortunately, once you rule out UK single market/customs union membership there is no model of Brexit which does not inflict significant harm on NI; the UK have obviously decided that that's a price they are prepared for NI to pay.

Panrich · 02-12-2017 10:49AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I simply agree that the UK should get on with leaving and get it over with. There's obvious opportunity outside if it is done rightly. I'm keen to make sure that Brexit is done in the right way which is why I prefer a negotiated agreement to no deal. There's nothing "mad" about seeing advantages in leaving the EU and seeing disadvantages in remaining in a bloc with ambitions to take more and more and more control from member states. Juncker's State of the Union address was a big wake up call in that regard. When I voted remain in 2016, I wasn't voting for the status quo like I thought I was.

I'm not mimicking anything that I don't hold to myself. On the payment a trade off for trade terms, this is how it is widely seen in Britain. I appreciate that the European Commission may have a different view, but the UK isn't agreeing this without seeking to get anything out of it. On the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed we have some way to go before payments will be made. And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

I'm happy to admit that I've voted Conservative in the last two general elections. I've wavered in London Assembly, local council and mayoral elections. (voted for Khan last time but Johnson before that, and Liberal Democrat for London Assembly) It seems that this may be a hangable offence on this forum :pac:

As for demfad's idea that I might be a Kremlin agent (is that what he's claiming? :pac:), one of the moderators can see that I've been based in the UK pretty much continually apart from the odd holiday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

As a conservative voter you might be familiar with this article so that shows the Brexit fantasy as laid out by your chief negotiator in the aftermath of the referendum.

As one of the comments afterwards points out, it has not aged well.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

This is now the time where reality is finally hitting and the innocently optimistic and simplistic mindset that is portrayed in that article and continues in your postings is increasingly at odds with the Brexit reality.

mickoneill31 · 02-12-2017 10:51AM

Akrasia wrote: »

It's actually
No border
Sea border only
Land border and Sea Border

from the republics perspective.

Ha, you're right. I hadn't thought about that one.
And there's another option

Sea Border only + NI stays in the SM (not a likely option but an option nonetheless)

Like every part of Brexit when you get into the weeds you see this is a cluster****.

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 10:57AM

Panrich wrote: »

As a conservative voter you might be familiar with this article so that shows the Brexit fantasy as laid out by your chief negotiator in the aftermath of the referendum.

As one of the comments afterwards points out, it has not aged well.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

This is now the time where reality is finally hitting and the innocently optimistic and simplistic mindset that is portrayed in that article and continues in your postings is increasingly at odds with the Brexit reality.

Good morning!

I don't see how this is a reply to what I've said really, but look let's say that the negotiation is tough, and let's say there is a price to pay. Are you proposing that the UK should bottle Brexit and ignore the electorate? (This is an option I can't accept because I respect democracy and democratic outcomes)

I agree that there is a price to pay. It seems that there is a trade off in terms of this and the amount of control that the UK regains. I think it's still better to try regain as much control as possible. Brexit was a vote about making decisions that affect the UK in Westminster, and not in Brussels.

I've got no doubt that this price will be worth it as the UK is able to take control of trade policy, and other areas.

I agree also, that the best policy for the short term would be to stay in the single market and customs union, but Brexit isn't a decision about the short term. It is a decision about the long term. That's why I think taking back as much control now for the long term in areas such as global trade is better than a myopic form of short termism which is what I think the calls to single market and customs union membership actually are.

If I hold to that as being a priority - there are two options.
A negotiated deal with the European Union versus no deal.

I've said previously that my preferred option isn't the easiest option, but it is the right option because it delivers on the referendum result with integrity rather than selling out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 02-12-2017 11:03AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not mimicking anything that I don't hold to myself. On the payment a trade off for trade terms, this is how it is widely seen in Britain. I appreciate that the European Commission may have a different view, but the UK isn't agreeing this without seeking to get anything out of it. On the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed we have some way to go before payments will be made. And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

It would help if you could stop with the platitudes that the Conservatives have tried to establish. I don't know if you have answered before but what is a bad deal? The only bad deal I can see is something akin to EEA membership and in the eyes of those that want a complete break and "taking back control" this would be a bad deal for them. For the UK economy, well that is up for debate.

Also it really doesn't matter how the UK wants to see the divorce payment, but they have already confirmed that they will pay for what they committed to. This is the divorce payment, it is not payment for access. The UK can agree the divorce bill and leave without a deal tomorrow and there is no obligation from the EU to give the UK anything as they haven't "paid" for anything yet. They seem to have only agreed the amounts that they have agreed to pay. It is not a payment for a trade deal and it will not be seen by the EU as that.

The UK cannot agree to the method of calculating what is owed and then under the, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, decide not to pay. That is why the EU wanted to talk about method and not amounts. Because the UK have already agreed to pay what they owe, if they agree to the method they have to pay unless they are all liars and crooks and should not be trusted for anything.

Panrich · 02-12-2017 11:14AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't see how this is a reply to what I've said really, but look let's say that the negotiation is tough, and let's say there is a price to pay. Are you proposing that the UK should bottle Brexit and ignore the electorate? (This is an option I can't accept because I respect democracy and democratic outcomes)

I agree that there is a price to pay. It seems that there is a trade off in terms of this and the amount of control that the UK regains. I think it's still better to try regain as much control as possible. Brexit was a vote about making decisions that affect the UK in Westminster, and not in Brussels.

I've got no doubt that this price will be worth it as the UK is able to take control of trade policy, and other areas.

I agree also, that the best policy for the short term would be to stay in the single market and customs union, but Brexit isn't a decision about the short term. It is a decision about the long term. That's why I think taking back as much control now for the long term in areas such as global trade is better than a myopic form of short termism which is what I think the calls to single market and customs union membership actually are.

If I hold to that as being a priority - there are two options.
A negotiated deal with the European Union versus no deal.

I've said previously that my preferred option isn't the easiest option, but it is the right option because it delivers on the referendum result with integrity rather than selling out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I have no doubt about your sincerity that you feel the economic price that The UK looks likely to pay is worth the independence that will come from that.

Your postings on here defending the vote are testament to an invested mindset.

The price will be high though. The EU are going to insert punitive punishment clauses if negotiations ever reach phase 2.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/brussels-punishment-clause-uk-trade-deal-regulatory-standards-brexit

If these negotiations were a boxing match the referee would have stopped the contest already to avoid further punishment. The incompetence on the UK side hamstrung by red lines and bravado is going to cause lasting damage.

First Up · 02-12-2017 11:25AM

Thargor wrote:

Can a mod give an opinion on stopping the user solodeogloria from starting every post with that incredibly irritating and passive aggressive "Good Morning!" and signing off every post with "Much Thanks" and his name?

Just hit Ignore.

Leroy42 · 02-12-2017 11:26AM

Solo, you mentioned obvious opputunity from Brexit.

Can you name some of them as I can't think of any beyond taking back control.

Agent J · 02-12-2017 11:34AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't see how this is a reply to what I've said really, but look let's say that the negotiation is tough, and let's say there is a price to pay. Are you proposing that the UK should bottle Brexit and ignore the electorate? (This is an option I can't accept because I respect democracy and democratic outcomes)

I love this response. I'm not going to bother with the rest because it's bunk that project reality (formerly known as fear) is already playing out in real time.

Britain is a parliamentary democracy with no written constitution. They don't have a lot of experience in referendums. The referendum was an advisory one with no automatic action (Say unlike the Scottish independence one) as a result. This was intentional. It was literally a glorified opinion poll.

Problem is May has treated the referendum as binding and Article 50 as advisory. The reality is that is the other way around and now the clock is ticking.

There was no need for May to put down her silly red lines over customs union, single market and ECJ. None of that was in the referendum was it? None of those are exclusively EU. In fact pretty much all prominent leavers are on record as saying they wanted to stay in the single market. Now their have cake and eat it strategy is blowing up in their faces.

So if you respect democracy so much then surely you should be up in arms about May hijacking a non binding advisory referendum for issues which were not asked?

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 11:37AM

Panrich wrote: »

I have no doubt about your sincerity that you feel the economic price that The UK looks likely to pay is worth the independence that will come from that.

Your postings on here defending the vote are testament to an invested mindset.

The price will be high though. The EU are going to insert punitive punishment clauses if negotiations ever reach phase 2.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/brussels-punishment-clause-uk-trade-deal-regulatory-standards-brexit

If these negotiations were a boxing match the referee would have stopped the contest already to avoid further punishment. The incompetence on the UK side hamstrung by red lines and bravado is going to cause lasting damage.

Good morning!

Let's see what gets agreed in the end state. From reading the article tariffs would be bounded by WTO regulations if this punishment clause was agreed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the UK standing up for its own interests. It is important to have red lines to ensure that the Prime Minister doesn't just hand over the crown jewels and the keys to Buckingham Palace. They are also important to ensure that the broad verdict of the referendum result is delivered.

Repeating that "the price will be high" isn't really helpful in making a case against seeking a deal that is in Britain's best long term interests over short termism. The reason why I support the negotiated free trade agreement option isn't rooted in "bravado". It's rooted in a desire to get the best arrangement with the best possible future scope for the UK.

You say I have an "invested mindset". Yes, but only in getting the best deal that will be as relevant in 50 years time as it is today.

Leroy42: Please read back over previous posts where I've highlighted the potential that the UK has in securing free trade arrangements. I've mentioned this dozens of times on this thread. I think it's best that I don't repeat myself ad-nauseum. I'd also recommend not repeating questions that I've already answered. This avoids repetition, and I'll be the one who is blamed for it on the thread.

Agent J: My position on both the "advisory referendum" on this thread has been clear. As has my position in respect to how the referendum result (and the campaign that got it over the line) requires the UK to leave the single market and customs union are clear. Please read my previous posts.

People have said I've been repetitive on this thread, and to a degree that is true. Largely because I've been asked questions I've already answered.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Call me Al · 02-12-2017 11:43AM

But solo your country already has a FTA. As part of the EU. One of the most profitable agreements available.
And your government is pinning its hopes on getting a good FTA with US&China, where it's the weaker party so unlikely to get a favourable result.

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 11:50AM

Call me Al wrote: »

But solo your country already has a FTA. As part of the EU. One of the most profitable agreements available.
And your government is pinning its hopes on getting a good FTA with US&China, where it's the weaker party so unlikely to get a favourable result.

Good morning!

I'll be brief here because I've touched on these issues before on this thread.

I would agree if the terms of single market membership weren't so restrictive (give up control of immigration, and giving up control of trade policy amongst others). The EU requires too much divestment of sovereignty, that's why the people voted against it. Brexit is in part about finding a more appropriate relationship with the EU.

Taking back control over these areas will allow for key decisions about the UK to be made in the UK as opposed to being made in Brussels.

I don't believe that the UK is a "weak party" or that it doesn't have anything to offer other countries. I posted why yesterday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Call me Al · 02-12-2017 11:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'll be brief here because I've touched on these issues before on this thread.

I would agree if the terms of single market membership weren't so restrictive (give up control of immigration, and giving up control of trade policy amongst others). The EU requires too much divestment of sovereignty, that's why the people voted against it. Brexit is in part about finding a more appropriate relationship with the EU.

Taking back control over these areas will allow for key decisions about the UK to be made in the UK as opposed to being made in Brussels.

I don't believe that the UK is a "weak party" or that it doesn't have anything to offer other countries. I posted why yesterday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I called it the weaker party.. a distinct difference.

Eta A look at the Ngaire Woods YouTube clip that was linked here earlier should give any brexit supporter an idea as to how things are likely to evolve for medium term.

Leonard Hofstadter · 02-12-2017 12:08PM

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

It's also incredibly myopic to suggest that the only reason we're lobbying for no border is because of trade. Do people really have such short memories?

That's exactly the reason I'm utterly opposed to a land border.

If a border didn't work in the 70s and 80s why would it work now?

Do we really want to go back to the days of the IRA and the kind of UK-Irish relations we had then?

I certainly don't, I want us to continue to build on the progress that was being made before Brexit and where we had the best of both worlds, better relations with the UK but no border between North and South. I don't want to see the relative normalisation of Northern Ireland being undone because of a few lunatic Brexiteers or the DUP - who only have 30% of the vote in the North anyway.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments