Brexit discussion thread II

Panrich · 03-12-2017 12:51AM

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

That leading members of Sinn Fein should be calling the British Government "delusional", "living in cloud cuckoo land" etc. should surprise nobody. I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.
However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

I spoke about the Irish psyche. Here's an insight into the English psyche. You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power. If the EU cannot reach a deal with the UK then they will be dealing with a far tougher Johnson / Davis led government.

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

Thank you for this fascinating post.

Junkyard Tom · 03-12-2017 12:51AM

whatever_ wrote: »

I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.

Gooooooooooooooood evening.

No Irish politician wants to be responsible for what could turn out be the hard re-partition of Ireland and perhaps the reemergence of conflict. The absolute only way to avoid the above is to prevent the re-imposition of a hard border.

That, Sir, is not a populist stance.

Much loveliness.

JYT.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-12-2017 12:52AM

SINDO - squint your eyes and you can just about make out the article;)

I feel dirty :pac:

03-12-2017 12:52AM

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

That leading members of Sinn Fein should be calling the British Government "delusional", "living in cloud cuckoo land" etc. should surprise nobody. I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.
However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

I spoke about the Irish psyche. Here's an insight into the English psyche. You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power. If the EU cannot reach a deal with the UK then they will be dealing with a far tougher Johnson / Davis led government.

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

If the UK maintains a 'soft-border' without a customs agreement, then it will be unable to, nor will there ever be any need whatsoever for them to make any trade deals with anyone. Given that unfettered access to the UK markets would be unilaterally extended to each and every nation in the WTO by such an event, under Most Favoured Nation rules.

This nonsense is rampant, and needs heading off as soon as possible. The UK is legally obliged to police its borders, as are all members of the EU, any contravention of this will open either party up to litigation.

The UK will not begin acting as a pariah state, ignoring the rule of law. Or if it does, then it will be treated as one. Not a great state of affairs by any stretch of the imagination.

The only way for there to be no hard border is for the EU and the UK to be in a customs union. That is it. And even a customs union has border checks. It was only the Single Market that removed borders internally within the EU.

LeinsterDub · 03-12-2017 12:54AM

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

Why would you build infrastructure that wasn't needed the land bridge with the UK worked fine. What positives do you expect to come from Brexit?

whatever_ wrote: »

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

50 billion bill, ECJ oversight,on going membership fees and whatever NI fudge they come up with. All the winning so much winning

Samaris · 03-12-2017 12:56AM

whatever_ wrote: »

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

Grand, glad you're with the sea border, if it will make Westminster happy to say it is a brilliant win for them they're welcome to it, tbh. The EU weren't going to impose it though, it is down to the far more fundamental basics of how world trade works by WTO rules - rules that both the EU and the newly Brexited UK follow. Either country breaking that - such as by refusing to enforce borders between regulatory systems, of which NI and RoI would now be two rather than one - results in a breach of WTO rules, which tends to lead on to trade disputes. (Also smuggling and risk of blind-eyeing on tariffs and duties which falls afoul of MFN) That is what Westminster is blithely assuming the EU are happy to swallow when they insist that the border can be kept totally open and it's down to the EU to put one there if they insist. No, Britain would get blindsided by starting negotiations within the WTO with a huge breach going on and the EU would have disputes from trade partners as a result.

One regulatory system on the island itself is more sensible, and has been what the Irish government has been requesting all along (i.e. staying in the CU). The British government wanted a solution to the hard border issue but were doing everything they could to commit nothing to it. Looks like they've come around to the idea, so great, May puts it in writing with a certain amount of detail and we can all move on...

Rain Ascending · 03-12-2017 01:26AM

axer wrote: »

Some more excellent analysis from Tony Connelly on where things are at here :
https://www.rte.ie/amp/924399/
Phase 2 not starting until at least March means businesses will have to start the process of implementing their contingency plans for a no deal - those jobs moving will really put the fire under the UK during trade talks weakening their hand even further.

Yep. Increasing the perception that a "no deal" scenario is more likely will start to have real-world impact in the new year, by way of job moves (as you flag up) and by way of new investment, new jobs being directed to other countries (which will be less visible, less public). By structuring the negotiations the way they did, the EU actually gave the UK a huge incentive to negotiate Phase 1 to a successful completion. Failure to agree Phase 1 means no deal, which in the EU's eyes, would be a disaster for the UK.

To get around that, the UK, of course, tried to adopt the idea that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal" ... and then failed to take the necessary steps to make that position credible. Logically, they should have acknowledged the problems, the damage that a "no deal" would cause, educated the general public (i.e. released the impact assessments), start to work the mitigation actions, and then realistically articulate the potential benefits. None of this happened, caught as many of the Brexiter proponents were between their implausible arguments and the complex reality of European integration.

So now, to get over Phase 1, Theresa May is having to back down, as fast as she can, hemmed in as she is by hard Brexiters internally, within her party, and the DUP externally. It's not clear that she has enough time to avoid the pit-trap deliberately dug by her own rhetoric.

J Mysterio · 03-12-2017 01:34AM

:pac:

Stopping Brexit could provide the NHS £300m a week, Sir Vince Cable says

03-12-2017 01:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

....
The only way for there to be no hard border is for the EU and the UK to be in a customs union. That is it. And even a customs union has border checks. It was only the Single Market that removed borders internally within the EU.

The UK knows this btw.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmexeu/372/372.pdf

page 24, note 47 reads:

We welcome the Government’s commitment to “no physical infrastructure” at the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We also welcome its rejection of a customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We do not currently see how it will be possible to reconcile there being no border with the Government’s policy of leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, which will inevitably make the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland the EU’s customs border with the UK; i.e. including the land border in Northern Ireland and at the ports of Holyhead, Milford Haven and Fishguard that provide freight services to and from the Republic of Ireland. It will be made harder by the fact that the Government’s proposals, by its own admission, are untested and to some extent speculative. We call upon the Government to set out in more detail how a “frictionless” border can in practice be maintained with the UK outside the Single Market and the Customs Union.

steddyeddy · 03-12-2017 01:45AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Gooooooooooooooood evening.

No Irish politician wants to be responsible for what could turn out be the hard re-partition of Ireland and perhaps the reemergence of conflict. The absolute only way to avoid the above is to prevent the re-imposition of a hard border.

That, Sir, is not a populist stance.

Much loveliness.

JYT.

How ya diddling?

Indeed Tom. It essentially amounts to repartition and that would be political suicide.

No, thank you!
SE

Rain Ascending · 03-12-2017 01:51AM

whatever_ wrote: »

I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these [Sinn Fein] populists at bay here at home than anything else.

whatever_ wrote: »

You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power.

Others have commented on other aspects of your post, but these two points stand out for me.

The first is a line that started to emerge in the UK newsmedia after Varadkar's Fine Gael conference speech, in an attempt to link Fine Gael to Sinn Fein. As anybody who follows Irish politics will tell you, this is one of the most implausible arguments ever -- Fine Gael's voter pool is completely separate from, and somewhat antagonistic to, that of Sinn Fein. Some senior political journalists like Laura Kuenssberg repeated this line, showing that they weren't doing the necessary research. Did somebody else from within the British establishment feed this analysis to journalists?

On your second point, I don't doubt your comment regarding the opinion many hold of Corbyn. But taking the broader, UK-wide view, I see that the Mail on Sunday has a poll with Labour eight percentage points ahead of the Conservatives...

Kermit.de.frog · 03-12-2017 01:52AM

Hear, hear Nigel.

Rain Ascending · 03-12-2017 02:18AM

For those interested in whether or not there will be disruption to air travel in and out of the UK post-Brexit, they will be glad to know that the UK is considering associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This would be a key move to avoid one set of issues around UK aviation and is good news for Ireland, given the importance of the Dublin-London route.

However it also throws up three interesting points around Phase 2 negotiations, all centered on the critical, boring, complex, unavoidable issue of regulation:

In many cases, there are structures like the EASA associate membership here, that will help greatly to avoid at least some of the craziness of a hard Brexit. But these are pre-defined -- the UK won't be able to negotiate changes in the detail of these. It either picks them off the menu or discards them. I suspect that aside from the Canada-like trade that needs to be negotiated, a lot of Phase 2 will simply be the UK making decisions on what options it wants to pick and if the EU is not too irritated by the UK, it will agree to that selection.
But there will be downsides from a UK perspective. My reading of the article is that while UK courts can be used to adjudicate disputes, it is the ECJ that is the ultimate court of appeal. I guess that there will be plenty of internal rows in the UK over the continued influence of the ECJ. It's just not possible to avoid the reach of the ECJ when you deal with the EU.
Also note the key role played by the US FAA in pushing the UK towards EASA. The UK here has got caught between a rock and a hard place. Regulators with established rules don't do politics, but cold regulation and law. "Deals" and "common sense" do not apply.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-12-2017 03:07AM

whatever_ wrote: »

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal"

Junkyard Tom · 03-12-2017 04:17AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hear, hear Nigel.

They spelled VETO wrong.

Enzokk · 03-12-2017 06:23AM

Rain Ascending wrote: »

For those interested in whether or not there will be disruption to air travel in and out of the UK post-Brexit, they will be glad to know that the UK is considering associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This would be a key move to avoid one set of issues around UK aviation and is good news for Ireland, given the importance of the Dublin-London route.

However it also throws up three interesting points around Phase 2 negotiations, all centered on the critical, boring, complex, unavoidable issue of regulation:
In many cases, there are structures like the EASA associate membership here, that will help greatly to avoid at least some of the craziness of a hard Brexit. But these are pre-defined -- the UK won't be able to negotiate changes in the detail of these. It either picks them off the menu or discards them. I suspect that aside from the Canada-like trade that needs to be negotiated, a lot of Phase 2 will simply be the UK making decisions on what options it wants to pick and if the EU is not too irritated by the UK, it will agree to that selection.

But there will be downsides from a UK perspective. My reading of the article is that while UK courts can be used to adjudicate disputes, it is the ECJ that is the ultimate court of appeal. I guess that there will be plenty of internal rows in the UK over the continued influence of the ECJ. It's just not possible to avoid the reach of the ECJ when you deal with the EU.

Also note the key role played by the US FAA in pushing the UK towards EASA. The UK here has got caught between a rock and a hard place. Regulators with established rules don't do politics, but cold regulation and law. "Deals" and "common sense" do not apply.

So this will cost the UK annually to be an associate member of EASA apart from the divorce bill. They will continue to pay into EU budgets, for those parts of the EU they need/want to participate in, and will continue to accept ECJ oversight for those institutions they continue to be part of. But they will not have voting rights.

Taking back control sounds a lot like giving it up to me, but whatever floats the boat I assume.

03-12-2017 06:34AM

What's the story with the BBC's comments sections under articles? Just had a look there and I think I lost around 20 IQ trying to twist my head around the nonsense.

One of the highest posts was about the UK selling EU manufacturing tech to China, striking a good deal, and then buying it from them instead of the EU.

I thought that level of stupidity only existed in TV shows.

Pablo Escobar · 03-12-2017 08:37AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the story with the BBC's comments sections under articles? Just had a look there and I think I lost around 20 IQ trying to twist my head around the nonsense.

One of the highest posts was about the UK selling EU manufacturing tech to China, striking a good deal, and then buying it from them instead of the EU.

I thought that level of stupidity only existed in TV shows.

The internet has provided a platform for the stupid to raise their heads above the parapet. And they really have seized the opportunity.

solodeogloria · 03-12-2017 08:53AM

Rain Ascending wrote: »

For those interested in whether or not there will be disruption to air travel in and out of the UK post-Brexit, they will be glad to know that the UK is considering associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This would be a key move to avoid one set of issues around UK aviation and is good news for Ireland, given the importance of the Dublin-London route.

However it also throws up three interesting points around Phase 2 negotiations, all centered on the critical, boring, complex, unavoidable issue of regulation:
In many cases, there are structures like the EASA associate membership here, that will help greatly to avoid at least some of the craziness of a hard Brexit. But these are pre-defined -- the UK won't be able to negotiate changes in the detail of these. It either picks them off the menu or discards them. I suspect that aside from the Canada-like trade that needs to be negotiated, a lot of Phase 2 will simply be the UK making decisions on what options it wants to pick and if the EU is not too irritated by the UK, it will agree to that selection.

But there will be downsides from a UK perspective. My reading of the article is that while UK courts can be used to adjudicate disputes, it is the ECJ that is the ultimate court of appeal. I guess that there will be plenty of internal rows in the UK over the continued influence of the ECJ. It's just not possible to avoid the reach of the ECJ when you deal with the EU.

Also note the key role played by the US FAA in pushing the UK towards EASA. The UK here has got caught between a rock and a hard place. Regulators with established rules don't do politics, but cold regulation and law. "Deals" and "common sense" do not apply.

Good morning!

Perhaps I'm becoming soft but this sounds like arbitration and not direct rule:

Norway and Switzerland have joint committees to allow that jurisdiction to operate indirectly, but it still exists.

I'm not opposed to associate membership as a temporary measure. I still think the end goal should be a regulatory body of its own.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 03-12-2017 09:19AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps I'm becoming soft but this sounds like arbitration and not direct rule:

I'm not opposed to associate membership as a temporary measure. I still think the end goal should be a regulatory body of its own.

You may have missed this quote in there as well though,

Captain Mike Vivian, former head of flight operations and chief flight operations inspector at the CAA, told Sky News: "If you have an alternative system of jurisdiction... if you do that in aviation, you could of course open up different safety standards.

"That would be impossible to accede to, so you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which oversees the European agency, EASA, to avoid that happening.

"I can't see there's any way out of that. It's a red line, it seems to me, the Government is going to have to cross."

The FAA has warned the UK that it will make it difficult for them if they aren't a member of EASA. Now the UK brings a lot to the table for EASA, no doubt about that. But if they exit with no deal then the UK has no part in any aviation agreements that is currently has as part of EASA.

I have no doubt that an independent UK agency can do the work, however it is just adding cost to work already being done. But this only increases the pressure on Theresa May and her government to make a deal with the EU that will have the UK crossing the red lines from the exit date.

If the UK economy is stuttering and they are still sort of in the EU but not in the EU I think minds will start changing on why they are not part of the EU. Once the extra costs of setting up those agencies that they want to leave to ensure the ECJ has no say in the UK starts adding up it will make it even more obvious that pooling resources was a good idea.

solodeogloria · 03-12-2017 09:27AM

Good morning!

It's indirect jurisdiction through a joint committee. I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement on a temporary basis. This is also why I'm happy with joint arbitration on the Brexit deal.

The end state should be regulatory competence of its own but until that is met I think EASA as a transition is completely fine.

I don't know why you're bringing "no deal" up. I'm in favour of a negotiated exit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Igotadose · 03-12-2017 09:41AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's indirect jurisdiction through a joint committee. I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement on a temporary basis. This is also why I'm happy with joint arbitration on the Brexit deal.

The end state should be regulatory competence of its own but until that is met I think EASA as a transition is completely fine.

I don't know why you're bringing "no deal" up. I'm in favour of a negotiated exit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The day I'd fly a UK-regulated-only plane anywhere in this endgame is... never. Bad enough state of aircraft and flying these days *with* the EASA and the FAA running things. Old overworked planes, overworked crews, overworked ground crew.

Nope. Stay in the EASA/FAA forever, or lose customers.

Leroy42 · 03-12-2017 10:37AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's indirect jurisdiction through a joint committee. I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement on a temporary basis. This is also why I'm happy with joint arbitration on the Brexit deal.

The end state should be regulatory competence of its own but until that is met I think EASA as a transition is completely fine.

I don't know why you're bringing "no deal" up. I'm in favour of a negotiated exit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you have accepted a doubling of the settlement bill.
You have accepted that the £350m to NHS was a lie
You have accepted an (at least) 0.4% drop in growth for the next five years.
You have accepted a fall off of growth from the fastest growing economy to the slowest since the vote
You have accepted a fall from 5th to 6th in the rankings, that has cost around £20bn since the vote.
And now you are prepared to accept indirect jurisdiction from a European body.
You have accepted an undefined transition period (I thought this was going to be the easiest deal ever)
You seem to be prepared to accept regulatory compliance.
If there anything you are not prepared to accept to get this Brexit?

Water John · 03-12-2017 10:44AM

The retreat is awfully like ' The Races of Castlebar'.
Historocal ref.

Panrich · 03-12-2017 10:49AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you have accepted a doubling of the settlement bill.
You have accepted that the £350m to NHS was a lie
You have accepted an (at least) 0.4% drop in growth for the next five years.
You have accepted a fall off of growth from the fastest growing economy to the slowest since the vote
You have accepted a fall from 5th to 6th in the rankings, that has cost around £20bn since the vote.
And now you are prepared to accept indirect jurisdiction from a European body.
You have accepted an undefined transition period (I thought this was going to be the easiest deal ever)
You seem to be prepared to accept regulatory compliance.
If there anything you are not prepared to accept to get this Brexit?

The reality is that many Brexit supporters will have their own red lines that they will not accept and these might differ from one to the next.

As we are moving through this process, we seem to be adding to your list on a daily basis. Regulatory divergence (a sea border) between UK/NI seems inevitable to get to phase 2. That’s a red line for many more.

Once we get to phase 2 and the EU insist on punishment clauses for divergence, then that will be unacceptable to many many more again.

By the end of the process there will be precious few Brexit supporters who will have the Brexit that they wanted and that will include Solo as well as the Conservatives, UKIP and the DUP.

Leroy42 · 03-12-2017 11:01AM

And isn't that one of the key problems.

The best that My has come up with is that 'Brexit means Brexit'. Nobody has any idea what it actually means, apart from what they themselves believe it to mean.

For example, one of the main points repeated during the campaign was that Brexit does not mean leaving the SM.

And if UK don't know what Brexit is supposed to actually mean, then how is anybody supposed to know. There are red lines, that are non negotiable negotiables. We have a non hard border position, unless we need one.

We have better trade deal with the EU, unless they are mean.

And that whats annoys me. The UK are so quick to blame others (the mean EU, the ungrateful and inexperienced Irish) when the fact is that they have no real idea what they want, how they can achieve it, or what their overall plan even is.

03-12-2017 11:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK knows this btw.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmexeu/372/372.pdf

page 24, note 47 reads:

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a member of the committee that drew up this paper repeats the assertion on Andrew Marr this morning that a border can just be ignored. -
"We have no intention of putting up a border".

Charlatan.

edgecutter · 03-12-2017 12:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the story with the BBC's comments sections under articles? Just had a look there and I think I lost around 20 IQ trying to twist my head around the nonsense.

One of the highest posts was about the UK selling EU manufacturing tech to China, striking a good deal, and then buying it from them instead of the EU.

I thought that level of stupidity only existed in TV shows.

Full of Russian bots

MPFGLB · 03-12-2017 12:37PM

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

That leading members of Sinn Fein should be calling the British Government "delusional", "living in cloud cuckoo land" etc. should surprise nobody. I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.
However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

I spoke about the Irish psyche. Here's an insight into the English psyche. You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power. If the EU cannot reach a deal with the UK then they will be dealing with a far tougher Johnson / Davis led government.

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

As an Irish person living in th UK of over 20 years standing who voted remain, married to an Englishman , who works daily with English people (some who voted leave) I have to comment on your post

The implication that the 'Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you.' I find distasteful especially if in comparison you do not accept that the Brexit loving British press with it jingoism and racism & ignorance says more about the Briitish Brexiter psyche than any intelligent Irish person should have to put up with ?

The English people I encounter everyday (of a certain age) do not all respect Jeremy Corby and the Queen and most are sick and ashamed of their press and government and find the whole thing distasteful, even the brexiters
But unlike you I will not talk for the British person psyche....

I will say that if you don’t understand that being Irish means that there is an emotional response to the issue of Northern Ireland by most Irish people that goes beyond borders, EU deals and is based in centuries of history that cannot be shaken then you really should not be speaking on the Irish psyche

That any of this is or will turn out to be a win for British diplomacy is delusional…guess (for the first time) I am with SF on that point

Samaris · 03-12-2017 01:19PM

Tbh, negotiating with a Johnson/Anyone group would be worse. The current group are bad enough, picking the wrong battles to fight, ignoring battles that they must fight and attacking their allies half the time. Johnson would do all that while being Boris fecking Johnson and god help Britain if they are to rely on his expertise and common sense for their future. The man is a buffoon with an even greater lack of understanding of what the EU is and how it works than the rest of them.

That has been a millstone around the necks of the British negotiators so far, a complete lack of understanding of their negotiating opponants and how they work by those in charge of Brexit. And worse, a critical lack of trying to either.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments