Brexit discussion thread II

MBSnr · 02-12-2017 12:09PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

No it's not. That's just repeating the empty Tory rhetoric back to this forum. Say Brexit means Brexit and we're having a Red,white and Blue Brexit and we've nearly got the whole set. Someone shout Bingo...!

A No deal could be actually worse than a bad deal. Look at it this way. You want to buy a car. There's a good deal, a slightly worse deal, a bad deal or you have no car.
You desperately need a car.
Which is the worse option? That's right - no car.

Leroy42 · 02-12-2017 12:10PM

With all due respect Solo, you really haven't given the obvious opportunities.

What you have given is possible scenarios based on everything working out perfectly and not actually given any details of what this actually are and what the likely costs associated with them (for example trade deal with India will likely require increased immigration)

You have used terms like increased trade, take back control, return of sovereignty. You have consistently said that the short/medium term costs are worth it. But you haven't been able to give any actual details of what these are?

I would have thought that after so long into the debate (including the lead up to and the aftermath of the ref) that these would be pretty well known. Of course you will come back and say that it is not possible to state with certainty, but doesn't that call into question you statement of obvious opportunity?

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 12:41PM

MBSnr wrote: »

No it's not. That's just repeating the empty Tory rhetoric back to this forum. Say Brexit means Brexit and we're having a Red,white and Blue Brexit and we've nearly got the whole set. Someone shout Bingo...!

A No deal could be actually worse than a bad deal. Look at it this way. You want to buy a car. There's a good deal, a slightly worse deal, a bad deal or you have no car.
You desperately need a car.
Which is the worse option? That's right - no car.

Good morning!

In a lot of scenarios you'd be better off without the car.

For example if it's so old that it's falling apart or will cost an unaffordable amount to repair. Or indeed if the repair costs exceeds the value of the car or the economic benefit of having a car.

Another example is the fairly gruelling process of buying a house. If your surveyor comes back and says the house is at risk of subsidence or that the roof is going to cave in with a huge sum to pay for repairing it you'll probably end up looking somewhere else.

The idea that any deal is better than no deal in this and in all scenarios is obviously daft. The car dealership scenario should surely tell you this.

There are of course deals which are worse than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

MBSnr · 02-12-2017 12:58PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In a lot of scenarios you'd be better off without the car.

For example if it's so old that it's falling apart or will cost an unaffordable amount to repair. Or indeed if the repair costs exceeds the value of the car or the economic benefit of having a car.

Another example is the fairly gruelling process of buying a house. If your surveyor comes back and says the house is at risk of subsidence or that the roof is going to cave in with a huge sum to pay for repairing it you'll probably end up looking somewhere else.

The idea that any deal is better than no deal in this and in all scenarios is obviously daft. The car dealership scenario should steely tell you this.

There are of course deals which are worse than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Yes but you're basing your analogy on there being many houses and cars for sale. There's just one. The BIB. You still need a house right, but it's the only one on the market. You'll be back to buy it. You still need a car. The bad car deal is the only one for sale...

It's a good bet the UK will capitulate and they'll take a deal. They have at all points up to now as reality bites...

Really Interested · 02-12-2017 01:00PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In a lot of scenarios you'd be better off without the car.

For example if it's so old that it's falling apart or will cost an unaffordable amount to repair. Or indeed if the repair costs exceeds the value of the car or the economic benefit of having a car.

Another example is the fairly gruelling process of buying a house. If your surveyor comes back and says the house is at risk of subsidence or that the roof is going to cave in with a huge sum to pay for repairing it you'll probably end up looking somewhere else.

The idea that any deal is better than no deal in this and in all scenarios is obviously daft. The car dealership scenario should surely tell you this.

There are of course deals which are worse than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Give your example to a homeless family a house is a house. For the person on the lookout to buy a new home yes no deal is better than buying a bad house, another better house is around the corner. No deal with EU is exactly that no deal. Yes the UK might decide that no deal is better than the deal on offer. But that is the situation the UK may have a really bad deal or a really bad no deal. Your only answer is that’s what they voted for so they must go ahead with it. That is beyond stupid. Name one person who voted for out happy that it may lead to a really bad situation.

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 01:05PM

MBSnr wrote: »

Yes but you're basing your analogy on there being many houses and cars for sale. There's just one. The BIB. You still need a house right, but it's the only one on the market. You'll be back to buy it. You still need a car. The bad car deal is the only one for sale...

It's a good bet the UK will capitulate and they'll take a deal. They have at all points up to now as reality bites...

Good afternoon!

If the cost of maintaining the car is more than I could afford given my job I still would say that no deal is better than a bad deal on the car.

The same with the house if the roof was likely to cave in.

I disagree with the assumption that the UK couldn't survive without a deal. This isn't true. It could but it isn't preferable. That's where our disagreement comes from.

This means that a deal is definitely ideal. It is what the UK should be aiming for without a doubt. But there are possible deals that aren't worth taking. Of course there are. The UK isn't going to accept a deal come what may in the same way as I would say no deal to a car that would empty my bank account.

I'm optimistic about a good deal being negotiated but the Tories aren't wrong to say no deal is better than a bad one. That's obviously true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Call me Al · 02-12-2017 01:09PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If the cost of maintaining the car is more than I could afford given my job I still would say that no deal is better than a bad deal on the car.

The same with the house if the roof was likely to cave in.

I disagree with the assumption that the UK couldn't survive without a deal. This isn't true. It could but it isn't preferable. That's where our disagreement comes from.

This means that a deal is definitely ideal. It is what the UK should be aiming for without a doubt. But there are possible deals that aren't worth taking. Of course there are. The UK isn't going to accept a deal come what may in the same way as I would say no deal to a car that would empty my bank account.

I'm optimistic about a good deal being negotiated but the Tories aren't wrong to say no deal is better than a bad one. That's obviously true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you think a no deal situation won't, as you phrase it, empty your bank account?

steddyeddy · 02-12-2017 01:10PM

MBSnr wrote: »

No it's not. That's just repeating the empty Tory rhetoric back to this forum. Say Brexit means Brexit and we're having a Red,white and Blue Brexit and we've nearly got the whole set. Someone shout Bingo...!

A No deal could be actually worse than a bad deal. Look at it this way. You want to buy a car. There's a good deal, a slightly worse deal, a bad deal or you have no car.
You desperately need a car.
Which is the worse option? That's right - no car.

M you're the worse for replying. A no deal is the way to go IMHO. It will hurt Ireland but also convince Britain that Brexit isn't a good thing.

Harika · 02-12-2017 01:14PM

Akrasia wrote: »

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

from the republics perspective.

How about a referendum in northern Ireland to verify what they want? That should clarify that although it is political dangerous and some involved parties might not like the will of the people.

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 01:17PM

Call me Al wrote: »

So you think a no deal situation won't, as you phrase it, empty your bank account?

Good afternoon!

Of course it wouldn't. This is the type of unquestioned dogma that doesn't get challenged on this thread. Along with the idea that the UK needs to accept a deal at any cost.

No deal would mean a lot of restrictions on trade into the EU in respect to goods and services but a lot would still continue. Trade with many non-EU countries would continue in much the same way.

So of course the UK wants a deal, but to say there's no deal that is a worse outcome than no agreement is wrong.

Nobody wants a no deal scenario or a bad deal because it isn't good but the UK could still weather it particularly with state assistance.

Edit:

steddyeddy wrote: »

M you're the worse for replying. A no deal is the way to go IMHO. It will hurt Ireland but also convince Britain that Brexit isn't a good thing.

Yes shame on him for refusing to allow the thread to become an echo chamber. Shame on him for engaging with other opinions!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

MBSnr · 02-12-2017 01:20PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

M you're the worse for replying. A no deal is the way to go IMHO. It will hurt Ireland but also convince Britain that Brexit isn't a good thing.

But if it's a no deal, that will mean a physical hard border with the UK, trading under WTO conditions. Is that what you want for Ireland?

Leroy42 · 02-12-2017 01:33PM

Solo what do you think the outcome of a no deal would be?

steddyeddy · 02-12-2017 01:36PM

MBSnr wrote: »

But if it's a no deal, that will mean a physical hard border with the UK, trading under WTO conditions. Is that what you want for Ireland?

No but the UK does. I want a sea border for Ireland. They want a hard Brexit out of the customs union. They don't seem to be aware that two different trading zones require at least a customs border. Let Britain leave the single market and NI stay.

markodaly · 02-12-2017 01:37PM

Is it me or do I think that the Government and the Dept. of Foreign Affairs have done brilliantly on this issue so far. We at this moment have the UK over a barrel. While we are at it, maybe we can get a few Billion out of them.

steddyeddy · 02-12-2017 01:37PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Of course it wouldn't. This is the type of unquestioned dogma that doesn't get challenged on this thread. Along with the idea that the UK needs to accept a deal at any cost.

No deal would mean a lot of restrictions on trade into the EU in respect to goods and services but a lot would still continue. Trade with many non-EU countries would continue in much the same way.

So of course the UK wants a deal, but to say there's no deal that is a worse outcome than no agreement is wrong.

Nobody wants a no deal scenario or a bad deal because it isn't good but the UK could still weather it particularly with state assistance.

Edit:

Yes shame on him for refusing to allow the thread to become an echo chamber. Shame on him for engaging with other opinions!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Opinions are grand, but your posts change ideology every few posts. Your posts aren't about Brexit. They're about oppisition to what the last poster said.

steddyeddy · 02-12-2017 01:38PM

markodaly wrote: »

Is it me or do I think that the Government and the Dept. of Foreign Affairs have done brilliantly on this issue so far. We at this moment have the UK over a barrel. While we are at it, maybe we can get a few Billion out of them.

Well Ireland will lose put either way IMHO, but you're right, the Irish government have been brilliant here.

solodeogloria · 02-12-2017 01:43PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Opinions are grand, but your posts change ideology every few posts. Your posts aren't about Brexit. They're about oppisition to what the last poster said.

Good afternoon!

If you don't want to hear my opinion you can ignore my posts.

My posts have all been about Brexit and why I think the UK is right to leave.

If other posters want to reply to me that's up to them. You can report my posts to a moderator if you find them objectionable.

I make no apologies for giving this thread the balance it desperately needs.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris · 02-12-2017 01:52PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Ireland will lose put either way IMHO, but you're right, the Irish government have been brilliant here.

At some point I'll dig out the reference, but I've been reading Tony Connelly's excellent (if rather terrifying) book Brexit and Ireland. It's all a bit convoluted, so I'm on the second read now and still not picked up everything. But still, it's made plain from interviews with EU commissioners and those organising the whole thing from the EU side that Ireland was exceptionally well-prepared for all this, as well as being one of the first off the mark ensuring that Ireland's position in this was not overlooked. The Irish were sending delegations right off the bat who knew intimately the problems that were being faced, from the border and from trade in almost every sector (agri was causing the biggest screaming heebie-jeebies unsurprisingly). One official commented that some of the Irish delegations knew enough that they could have worked for the commission on it.

Just nice to see some news of competency in this age of unrepentant Stupid.

markodaly · 02-12-2017 02:12PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Ireland will lose put either way IMHO, but you're right, the Irish government have been brilliant here.

Well it was a scenario that was thrust on us, there are going to be some winners and some losers either way. But the border issue is something we can control and if that goes our way then I think we will have done as best we could.

markodaly · 02-12-2017 02:31PM

Samaris wrote: »

At some point I'll dig out the reference, but I've been reading Tony Connelly's excellent (if rather terrifying) book Brexit and Ireland. It's all a bit convoluted, so I'm on the second read now and still not picked up everything. But still, it's made plain from interviews with EU commissioners and those organising the whole thing from the EU side that Ireland was exceptionally well-prepared for all this, as well as being one of the first off the mark ensuring that Ireland's position in this was not overlooked. The Irish were sending delegations right off the bat who knew intimately the problems that were being faced, from the border and from trade in almost every sector (agri was causing the biggest screaming heebie-jeebies unsurprisingly). One official commented that some of the Irish delegations knew enough that they could have worked for the commission on it.

Just nice to see some news of competency in this age of unrepentant Stupid.

Whatever those guys have been eating in the Dept. of Foreign Affairs they should feed other departments with the same (looking at you Dept. of Justice).

Foreign Affairs is one of those areas which the government has done brilliantly in the past few years. EU relations with Ireland was at a low during the banking crisis with the Bertie and Cowen governments more interested in having piss ups then engaging diplomatically with their EU partners. Many many stories went around then about members of government having to be showered down by their handlers before EU summit meetings because they were so drunk and/or hungover. The arrogance the then Irish government carried itself back then was also commentated on by other within the EU, it was the case that the then FF government alone created the celtic tiger and they knew best.

Enda and FG took over and went to work behind the scenes which has now manifested itself with a situation where by the Irish government can wield a veto with the backing of all EU member states against the UK. This was by no means an overnight success, it started years ago.

Foreign Affairs is not something sexy like missing emails, so the media most likely ignore any success they achieve but it should be acknowledged regardless and whomever is in government to keep it going.

FrancieBrady · 02-12-2017 02:40PM

markodaly wrote: »

Whatever those guys have been eating in the Dept. of Foreign Affairs they should feed other departments with the same (looking at you Dept. of Justice).

Foreign Affairs is one of those areas which the government has done brilliantly in the past few years. EU relations with Ireland was at a low during the banking crisis with the Bertie and Cowen governments more interested in having piss ups then engaging diplomatically with their EU partners. Many many stories went around then about members of government having to be showered down by their handlers before EU summit meetings because they were so drunk and/or hungover. The arrogance the then Irish government carried itself back then was also commentated on by other within the EU, it was the case that the then FF government alone created the celtic tiger and they knew best.

Enda and FG took over and went to work behind the scenes which has now manifested itself with a situation where by the Irish government can wield a veto with the backing of all EU member states against the UK. This was by no means an overnight success, it started years ago.

Foreign Affairs is not something sexy like missing emails, so the media most likely ignore any success they achieve but it should be acknowledged regardless and whomever is in government to keep it going.

Could the PR find a thread of it's own maybe?

Samaris · 02-12-2017 02:42PM

One of the trickier jobs they had to do (this was back under Kenny) was getting in a "Unity clause", enshrining the GFA IF NI chose under the rules set down in the GFA to join Ireland for NI to do so and automatically join the EU along with the Republic. This was based to some extent on the German precedent, which was the reunification of East and West Germany and the East being brought into the EU. This was done under the Irish presidency and the Germans (admittedly two chancellors ago) were grateful for Irish support on it.

The unity clause wasn't easy to bring in either - the Spanish and the French (and I think Netherlands) were all nervy about it - and you can imagine what the British thought of it. The wording had to be phrased very carefully to ensure that this couldn't be used as a precedent and in no way was applicable except by NI choosing to join Ireland under the terms of the GFA. This all had to be kept fairly quiet too, to not cause a diplomatic ****storm. It wasn't hidden, mind, it was presented to all the other leaders and was written down in the negotiations, but it could not be lauded as a success for fear of spooking Britain and contributing to the "Dublin is listening to Sinn Fein to steal NI" bull**** in Westminster and the press.

The government is being eyeballed for, in the eyes of the public, not doing enough to get jobs from Britain. But tbh, reading what they had to deal with before any opportunities could be chased, they didn't get much credit for what they achieved.

Samaris · 02-12-2017 02:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could the PR find a thread of it's own maybe?

Eh, is it not relevant to the topic and part of what's been going on?

I know it's more fun to bitch relentlessly (and boy there is a lot to bitch about), but credit where it's due.

FrancieBrady · 02-12-2017 02:45PM

Samaris wrote: »

Eh, is it not relevant to the topic and part of what's been going on?

I know it's more fun to bitch relentlessly (and boy there is a lot to bitch about), but credit where it's due.

You may or may not have noticed that I have already given plaudits to how it is being handled by Dublin.
In one sentence and without trying to score points against other parties who are actually working in consensus with the gov.

MPFGLB · 02-12-2017 02:46PM

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.

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.

There has to be a border somewhere ...so the question is not no border versus border but where the border will be

Here is my more radical view

No border between NI & Uk
No border between Ireland & NI

All controls and checks done on the way into Irealnd from EU
UK mainland has it own checks with EU

So virtual border for the purposes of UK in Ireland

Ireland takes control of the flow. Ireland is funded by UK & EU to do so

Goods into Ireland from EU must be for Irish or NI use and if not must pay UK tariffs and will be flagged as so to UK customs & excise
People into Ireland from EU must be to reside in Ireland./NI and if not will be reported to UK authorities as incoming

Why is this best

Well no NI border and what that constitutes
No border between NI & UK (in the sea or otherwise) and what that implies to the Unionists

No loss of flow between Ireland, NI & UK
Ireland get free flow to NI and thus UK (with maybe a special deal for Ireland & UK trade tariffs)

Unionists and NI walk away as having 'won' as no sea border

Ireland has to masively increase it jobs and technology to tag and track product flow. Better and more work on immigration flow

I think this is if I say so myself the win win situation
UK & Ireland & NI will have to work to make it viable and I can see it would work very well

Any company locating to Ireland have the best of both worlds if Ireland can get favourable rates as a quid pro quo
Any company going to NI could get the same if EU make NI a special case re tariffs

Played properly this could be a mega opportunity for Ireland
Opportunities like this dont come around very often

and Irealnd have the power now to make it happen
They can get great rates from May
Ni an get rates from Tusk

Water John · 02-12-2017 02:54PM

You forgot the third solution where EU and UK mirror each other. But you know who will lead and who will follow.

Carb · 02-12-2017 02:59PM

One thing I am curious about, and I accept I may have missed it, but why is the DUP the only voice I'm hearing from the North. I understand their position supporting the Conservatives is going to generate much more coverage, not to mention their abrasive approach, and the current impasse in Stormont creates a bit of a vacuum. I would have expected much more visibility from other political and business leaders, especially given the North voted to remain.

flaneur · 02-12-2017 03:06PM

Water John wrote: »

You forgot the third solution where EU and UK mirror each other. But you know who will lead and who will follow.

The EU won’t accept that at all because it would be one external country dictating policy to 27.

I think because we are in Ireland and next to the UK, we over estimate how much this matters to most of the EU. They’re not going to want to be hamstrung by some deal with an irrational former member where a significant element of its political system and electorate seem to rant and rave about wanting to not only leave the EU but even destroy or undermine it.

It’s not the EU side that’s being utterly unreasonable here. It’s the UK and it’s coming from a long and well established pattern of Eurobashing that’s embedded in politics.

I feel sorry for the large % of completely reasonable, friendly and openminded British people and politicians. However, the way that the other large % of their compatriots have dealt with the EU and others is burning all the bridges and making deals extremely difficult to foresee happening.

They really aren’t in a very strong position to force the EU to do anything and we aren’t all members of the EU so that it works against our collective interests and facilitates hostile 3rd countries / bitter former members.

Jayop · 02-12-2017 03:06PM

Carb wrote: »

One thing I am curious about, and I accept I may have missed it, but why is the DUP the only voice I'm hearing from the North. I understand their position supporting the Conservatives is going to generate much more coverage, not to mention their abrasive approach, and the current impasse in Stormont creates a bit of a vacuum. I would have expected much more visibility from other political and business leaders, especially given the North voted to remain.

The only voice you're hearing because they're the only ones being listened to. The other Unionist parties are making noise and Niomi Long is as always talking complete common sense on her Twitter account. She's a bit of a legend on Twitter.

flaneur · 02-12-2017 03:17PM

Jayop wrote: »

The only voice you're hearing because they're the only ones being listened to. The other Unionist parties are making noise and Niomi Long is as always talking complete common sense on her Twitter account. She's a bit of a legend on Twitter.

What annoys me is I’m seeing and hearing comments from very reasonable unionists who probably voted DUP.

If you vote for extreme parties, you get extreme politics. Northern voters need to understand that this is exactly what the DUP were always going to do!

If you voted for them, you really don’t get to complain about them doing exactly what they’ve always done.

They may be good at getting community funds or filling local potholes but this is how they play the bigger game.

The unionist electorate largely abandoned the middle ground and this is what you get when you do!

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments