Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

swampgas wrote: »

From the Irish Times ... Barclays looking to move a big chunk of their business to Dublin.

Barclays seeking to move €250bn business to Republic ahead of Brexit
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/barclays-seeking-to-move-250bn-business-to-republic-ahead-of-brexit-1.3680943

Even if Brexit were avoided, I can't see moves like this being reversed all that easily once they have occurred.

This stuff is highly likely to terrify senior level headed figures in the Tory party.

EdgeCase wrote: »

It seems the Home Office is now challenging Irish nationals born in Northern Ireland to prove they have an entitlement to live in Northern Ireland i.e. the UK.

I can see this ending VERY badly:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/31/home-office-tells-northern-irish-woman-to-prove-right-to-live-in-belfast?CMP=share_btn_tw

It's a blatant breech of the GFA.

Article confused me some, but it seems like both women (two different couples discussed, sigh) renounced their UK citizenships which 'threw' the home office, who are trying to fix this up, apparently. I don't think this is big time exciting/breach of the GFA category politics, though the Home Office isn't exactly held in high esteem due to the seemingly endless snafus from them. Then again, I doubt any nation's happy with its immigration department.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely the applicant should apply for Irish nationality for her spouse. That should solve the problem.

Not sure of the cost, but it would be simpler.

Spouse would need to be living in the country (not sure if NI counts) for three of the last four years.

Rhineshark wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Incorrect. The December agreement was agreed  in principle ( 2 ) and also under the caveat  that " nothing is agreed until everything is agreed "
The agreement is in the link below. 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

Yes, it was, but once it has been signed off by both principles, particularly when this a caveat for moving on to the next phase, it is most certainly reneging to say "what do you mean we signed up to this, we thought we were bull****ting you!"

So I stick with my prior phrasing. It was not transposed into law, but it was agreed under the expectation and agreement that it would be. The Tories backslid in a way that makes the UK look pretty bad on the international stage.

The EU themselves admitted 48 hours later that the December Agreement was not legally binding, it was a statement of intent to move onto the withdrawal agreement and agreed by the EU27. The agreement was not signed, how could the UK sign a binding agreement that would commit them to pay a divorce bill and bind them into staying in the CU without knowing what the future relationship would look like.

Strazdas wrote: »

Mezcita wrote: »

100%. I unwisely listened to this last night. The Spectator live panel podcast on what happens if there is a no deal:

https://audioboom.com/posts/7066142-spectator-live-brexit-deal-or-no-deal

Basically Ken Claire versus a bunch of Brexit fans including David Davis.
Highlights included Davis saying that the EU will break at the last minute to give the UK what they want (1.00). How the EU is out to punish the UK by leaving (1.08). Finally, how Varadkar should be blamed for escalating the problem about the border as he is nowhere near as accommodating as Enda was (can't find that bit).

They genuinely haven't learnt a thing in the last two years. The only way they will learn is once all hell breaks loose as a result of no deal.

Time to let them roll the dice.

Yes, they are not pragmatists.....more like fantasists living out an ideology. It's a mixture of ignorance and delusion and them listening to each other only for the last two and a half years. They don't know what the EU is or how it works and know very little about international trade.

Anyone who gets in the way of the ideology (Barnier, Varadkar, Macron etc) is an enemy.

It's like the freemen on the land - with the same cargo cult version of reality.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Raab sounds delusional, saying a deal could be finalised in three weeks, when there appears to be no progress whatsoever.

Raab already knows what's on the table - No progress is needed, May just has to agree to it.

But not until the last minute to stop Parliament arguing with it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Raab already knows what's on the table - No progress is needed, May just has to agree to it.

But not until the last minute to stop Parliament arguing with it.

Parliament isn't the problem, the Tories and their props are the problem.

Wow, respect to Clarke. Completely grounded in reality, is not afraid to call things what they are and all that with humour and class. Sadly, he is a minority and totally outnumbered in the panel (he admitted it jokingly). They put him there more for the purpose of ridiculing him than to balance the discussion. Well, Spectator is a Tory ideology propaganda paper, so no surprise.

Davis totally out of space as usual. Not a smart guy. Quoting anecdotal evidence and hearsay as facts. Lightly retarded over optimistic person. He is the "Good Brexiteer" type, just overly optimistic about his ability and deficient in intelligence.

Stuart (is she a foreigner, she has French/German sounds in there?) loads of generic cliche statements with no substance, talking about democracy, such a joke, UK is democratically the most deficient in the Western Europe at least. German-English preaching democracy to Germans who have a functional, representative, federal, decentralised government way ahead of bipartisan dysfunctional union of England and its attachments. She is the "naive Brexiteer" type.

Then the economist, ironically of Irish descent, too much nonsense, very arrogant and vain, mostly talking ideologic stuff (and untrue). He is the "Vicious Brexiteer" type.

All Brexiteer myths, lies, conspiracy theories, delusions repeated there. And Clarke rightly called it paranoia, right there, openly. I had really hard time listening to it all, my BS meter went off the charts. Towards the end it sounded like a religious sermon, not as a rational discussion. It was like a congregation of all types of Brexiteers and confluence of all the Brexit BS. Too strong, a bit too much in the the evening.

charlie14 wrote:

I didn`t, and I said so in December that I believed it was a fudge to allow talks to move to Phase 2 and that it would come back to haunt us if it wasn`t dealt with comprehensively and conclusively at the time. Back now where we were in December, I`m afraid is not what I would view as being successful from a RoI perspective.

Did you foresee the UK enacting legislation in the house of commons to scupper the backstop?

Because that shows just how solid an approach it was by the EU/Ireland that it took them doing that to get around it.

Nothing was kicked down the road. The matter will not be revisited.

Nate

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Nothing was kicked down the road. The matter will not be revisited.

Nate

Of course it was kicked down the road.
The border issue is the major sticking point according to the E.U.

charlie14 wrote:

What would have been a solid approach by Ireland when we had the backing of our E.U. partners that talks would not progress until we were satisfied was a legal binding agreement passed into law by the British parliament.

You think the British parliament should have been forced by the EU, early in a negotiation process, to enact legislation to enforce a partial agreement cementing the possible segmentation of the UK?

No chance. Never going to happen.

McGiver wrote: »

Wow, respect to Clarke. Completely grounded in reality, is not afraid to call things what they are and all that with humour and class. Sadly, he is a minority and totally outnumbered in the panel (he admitted it jokingly). They put him there more for the purpose of ridiculing him than to balance the discussion. Well, Spectator is a Tory ideology propaganda paper, so no surprise.

Davis totally out of space as usual. Not a smart guy. Quoting anecdotal evidence and hearsay as facts. Lightly retarded over optimistic person. He is the "Good Brexiteer" type, just overly optimistic about his ability and deficient in intelligence.

Stuart (is she a foreigner, she has French/German sounds in there?) loads of generic cliche statements with no substance, talking about democracy, such a joke, UK is democratically the most deficient in the Western Europe at least. German-English preaching democracy to Germans who have a functional, representative, federal, decentralised government way ahead of bipartisan dysfunctional union of England and its attachments. She is the "naive Brexiteer" type.

Then the economist, ironically of Irish descent, too much nonsense, very arrogant and vain, mostly talking ideologic stuff (and untrue). He is the "Vicious Brexiteer" type.

All Brexiteer myths, lies, conspiracy theories, delusions repeated there. And Clarke rightly called it paranoia, right there, openly. I had really hard time listening to it all, my BS meter went off the charts. Towards the end it sounded like a religious sermon, not as a rational discussion. It was like a congregation of all types of Brexiteers and confluence of all the Brexit BS. Too strong, a bit too much in the the evening.

There's a lot to be said for a No Deal bringing the whole ideology down.

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law but they remind me a lot of the Nazis, especially towards the end of the war when everything starts to collapse around them but they remain true to the ideology (to the point where such behaviour becomes very self destructive).