Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Options
1…6667697172…321

Comments

  • Options
    #2042
    kuro68k
    Registered Users Posts: 261 ✭✭kuro68k


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Yes but crucially Portugal is saying the deal does not have to be perfect. They are saying they need a deal.

    Code for "you know this Irish stuff...we don't think that should jeopardise a deal"

    Poland also explicitally said "Do we really want no deal because of Ireland!?" some months back at a meeting of foreign ministers although at the time they were knocked back.

    When push comes to shove...

    It's not really about Ireland. It's about the Single Market.

    The EU will protect the Single Market not matter what. In the end every EU country benefits hugely from it, and anything that weakens or dilutes it will hurt them far more than the UK crashing out with no deal.

    That's why all the stuff about "German car manufacturers will force them to deal, the UK is their biggest market!" was nonsense. The UK market is much smaller than the rest of the Single Market combined, and protecting the latter will always be the priority.


  • Options
    #2043
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,111 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Enzokk wrote: »
    There are reports that a deal for services has been reached with the WA.

    Brexit deal on financial services agreed – report

    You have to wonder what pound of flesh the EU will get from the UK for this. This is good news though as it means the UK will not be allowed to just diverge on a whim of the USA and it seems to me that the end result will be basically, BRINO.
    That seems to be denied now


  • Options
    #2044
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    That seems to be denied now

    Someone is flying kites or playing games here (I'm referring to the earlier reports of a deal). It smells of desperation.


  • Options
    #2045
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    swampgas wrote:
    Someone is flying kites or playing games here (I'm referring to the earlier reports of a deal). It smells of desperation.


    Or a few barrow boys making a good margin on currency trades.


  • Options
    #2046
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Tell me how wrote: »
    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.


    We were assured that unless the border backstop was resolved to our satisfaction then negotiations would not proceed to Phase 2. For that to be really "politically bullet proof" would have, (and still will), required the British parliament to enact legislate.
    What we accepted was a fudge that let the British off the hook in December, and allowed them to do the exact opposite.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2047
    Mc Love
    Registered Users Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    This is like Raab saying Brexit would be agreed by Nov 21st but statement was withdrawn.


  • Options
    #2048
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,261 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Enzokk wrote: »
    There are reports that a deal for services has been reached with the WA.

    Brexit deal on financial services agreed – report



    You have to wonder what pound of flesh the EU will get from the UK for this. This is good news though as it means the UK will not be allowed to just diverge on a whim of the USA and it seems to me that the end result will be basically, BRINO.
    First look at the source; "UK government officials", then look at the statement, "hmm, something going against what EU does" and the rest as they say is history.


  • Options
    #2049
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    Yeah, because issues like a time limit will not be revised. The UK can sign the agreement they have negiotiated, or they can sod off with no deal, their choice. The EU can't force them to sign, but it can refuse to offer anything else.


    Yet here we are 10 months later with negotiations on a backstop still on-going because the issue was allowed to be kicked down the road allowing talks to move to Phase 2. Something the British were desperate to do in December 2017.


  • Options
    #2050
    Angry bird
    Closed Accounts Posts: 808 ✭✭✭Angry bird


    Sign up or no deal. The DUP only cares about NI being treated differently. The resultant trade deal will do exactly that, it'll be GB&NI wide. The backstop is designed a) to be never used and b) the border is taken off the table in trade negotiations. The nonsense from the DUP is just them playing the orange card, that it makes them look like clowns is irrelevant to them but if it comes back to bite them and a UI comes about, it's just a beautiful irony in their hatred for all things green.


  • Options
    #2051
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Tell me how wrote: »
    In a United Ireland. There will no longer be a Union Jack so what will the party set out to achieve for such voters.

    I can absolutely guarantee that just as the tricolour is a huge issue in NI now, the Union jack and the Red Hand will be huge issues in any future NI.

    Unionists will insist on recognition of their identity in any future UI, and (since it is just symbolic nonsense) we will let them fly whatever flags they like and worship King Charles if they want to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2052
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Zubeneschamali wrote:
    I can absolutely guarantee that just as the tricolour is a huge issue in NI now, the Union jack and the Red Hand will be huge issues in any future NI.

    Unionists will insist on recognition of their identity in any future UI, and (since it is just symbolic nonsense) we will let them fly whatever flags they like and worship King Charles if they want to.

    They can support who they want, similar to Irish living in countries outside of Ireland but to think they will be facilitated within our constitution (whatever that will be) in supporting and having some firm of allegiance to a foreign state or monarch won't happen.

    The tricolour is (was) an issue in the north because of two states claiming the land. It is likely in a future UI, only one state will be claiming the land.

    Very different circumstance.


  • Options
    #2053
    Angry bird
    Closed Accounts Posts: 808 ✭✭✭Angry bird


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Yet here we are 10 months later with negotiations on a backstop still on-going because the issue was allowed to be kicked down the road allowing talks to move to Phase 2. Something the British were desperate to do in December 2017.

    There is no more negotiations, that's it. Sign up or toddle along. But let's say there's no deal, and all sorts will be looking to blame different players, including Ireland, then the following applies: it is better not to sign a deal that gives GB a veto on the border into pepuity than sign a deal that does. It is better to wait a few months or years to sign an acceptable border deal, and then talk trade, whilst at all times protecting the single market, the EU jewel in the crown and by extension protecting GFA and northern nationalists from the orange card brigade. To give a third country first dibs on the irish border when we have unanimous EU backing, would be the height of folly.


  • Options
    #2054
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    This could never, ever have happened, and EU demands back in December 2017 that it should happen would have been - rightly - seen as a thinly-disguised technique for bringing the talks to an end and ensuring a no-deal Brexit (and a hard border).


    So why were we being assured that unless the border issue was resolved to our satisfaction, (something that still obviously is not the case ), talks would not proceed?
    There was nothing thinly-disguised about that resulting in a no-deal Brexit.


  • Options
    #2055
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    charlie14 wrote: »
    We were assured that unless the border backstop was resolved to our satisfaction then negotiations would not proceed to Phase 2. For that to be really "politically bullet proof" would have, (and still will), required the British parliament to enact legislate.
    What we accepted was a fudge that let the British off the hook in December, and allowed them to do the exact opposite.
    charlie14 wrote: »
    So why were we being assured that unless the border issue was resolved to our satisfaction, (something that still obviously is not the case ), talks would not proceed?
    There was nothing thinly-disguised about that resulting in a no-deal Brexit.

    What we accepted wasn't a fudge it achieved our goal 100% it's not our fault that either the British lied or were too stupid to understand what they accepted as BoJo and DD seem to be suggesting.


  • Options
    #2056
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    What we accepted wasn't a fudge it achieved our goal 100% it's not our fault that either the British lied or were too stupid to understand what they accepted as BoJo and DD seem to be suggesting.

    Important also to note that what Boris, Davis, Rees-Mogg and co. say to the press does not matter in the slightest. What matters is what is in the Withdrawal Agreement, and Barnier has been very emphatic that the backstop is there in green text - it is not being revised.

    The UK can take a WA with the backstop and progress to transition and talks on the future relationship or they can crash out in March with nothing.


  • Options
    #2057
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,568 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    With regards to the story on Services we have the following tweet,

    https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1057971014229999616

    So it seems the reporting was premature to proclaim a deal had been reached. It also seems that if a deal is reached it will look like previous deals where the EU can withdraw equivalence when they want. Or do I have the wrong side of the stick once again?

    In other news there is some movement on the funding of Vote Leave and whether everything was above board.

    Arron Banks faces criminal inquiry over Brexit campaign

    The National Crime Agency has launched an investigation into Arron Banks and other people and groups linked to the leave campaign over suspected criminal offences in the Brexit referendum, it has announced.

    It came after the Electoral Commission said it had referred the cases to the NCA over suspicions that a “number of criminal offences may have been committed”, and that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Banks, the insurance millionaire who backed the unofficial leave campaign, was not the “true source” of £8m in loans to it.

    If you had watched his appearance before the committee where he refused to talk about where and how he made his money you would have known something didn't appear right. Why would he not talk about how and where he got the money for the funding from if it was all above board?


  • Options
    #2058
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Akrasia wrote: »
    TM can agree all this with the EU but if she can't get it through her own parliament its a waste of time

    The EU have made no concessions here at all. The UK won't be able to control their own financial services regulations and the EU can change our regulations and force the UK to change theirs (just with longer notice period)

    It's an agreement for the UK to be worse off in basically every way they were before Brexit.

    Its a negotiated surrender where they're taking reasonable terms rather than be annihilated by going for a no deal crash out

    I can't see the hardcore Brexiters voting for this kind of an arrangement.

    But if they change the regulations for the UK wouldn't they also need to change the regulations for us?


  • Options
    #2059
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Nody wrote: »
    Enzokk wrote: »
    There are reports that a deal for services has been reached with the WA.

    Brexit deal on financial services agreed – report



    You have to wonder what pound of flesh the EU will get from the UK for this. This is good news though as it means the UK will not be allowed to just diverge on a whim of the USA and it seems to me that the end result will be basically, BRINO.
    First look at the source; "UK government officials", then look at the statement, "hmm, something going against what EU does" and the rest as they say is history.

    And Barnier has already rubbished the story:

    http://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1057971014229999616


  • Options
    #2060
    briany
    Registered Users Posts: 13,551 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I can absolutely guarantee that just as the tricolour is a huge issue in NI now, the Union jack and the Red Hand will be huge issues in any future NI.

    Unionists will insist on recognition of their identity in any future UI, and (since it is just symbolic nonsense) we will let them fly whatever flags they like and worship King Charles if they want to.

    The Irish government can only bend back so far in giving concessions to British Unionists concessions on their identity and culture. What is the point where the rest of Ireland tells them to wind their neck in? Mass Orange Order festival on the banks of the Boyne? The playing of The Sash during the Dublin St. Paddy's Day parade?


  • Options
    #2061
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Looks like fishing is becoming another stumbling block. From the article:

    A number of key member states are set to oppose a commitment to an all-UK customs deal on the basis that negotiations are yet to start on what access European fishermen will have to British waters after Brexit.

    Looks like Ireland aren't in the firing line for this one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2062
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Why would it be a ticking time bomb. Unionists would have no reason to exist politically. They'd essentially have the same options unionists had in 1922 get use to it or leave.

    Would imagine there might be a hardcore who'd want their independence from Ireland and become the new Free State, having had separation forced on them from Great Britain, Europe and here.


  • Options
    #2063
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Angry bird wrote: »
    There is no more negotiations, that's it. Sign up or toddle along. But let's say there's no deal, and all sorts will be looking to blame different players, including Ireland, then the following applies: it is better not to sign a deal that gives GB a veto on the border into pepuity than sign a deal that does. It is better to wait a few months or years to sign an acceptable border deal, and then talk trade, whilst at all times protecting the single market, the EU jewel in the crown and by extension protecting GFA and northern nationalists from the orange card brigade. To give a third country first dibs on the irish border when we have unanimous EU backing, would be the height of folly.


    There are still on-going negotiations on a backstop so effectively nothing has changed since December 2017, other than Britain being allowed to proceed too Phase 2 of talks by the can to be kicked down the road.
    It was obvious from May`s original proposal in December just how desperate the British were to move to Phase 2 of talks. A missed opportunity and a fudge when the gun was really too her head imho.


  • Options
    #2064
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,568 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    charlie14 wrote: »
    We were assured that unless the border backstop was resolved to our satisfaction then negotiations would not proceed to Phase 2. For that to be really "politically bullet proof" would have, (and still will), required the British parliament to enact legislate.
    What we accepted was a fudge that let the British off the hook in December, and allowed them to do the exact opposite.


    We couldn't get a legal agreement in December last year because it is part of the Withdrawal Agreement and as of last week or so it was, at least according to the UK, about 95% complete. Even if we have gotten written agreement on the border it would still not be agreed until the whole WA is, and this needs to be approved by all those parliaments.

    So while we could have gotten a signed agreement you can bet the DUP would have collapsed the government due to it.


  • Options
    #2065
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    These bullcrap leaks by British newspapers are having immediate implications for currency markets.. there is a lot of money to be made for those 'leaking' these stories


  • Options
    #2066
    Mc Love
    Registered Users Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    lawred2 wrote: »
    These bullcrap leaks by British newspapers are having immediate implications for currency markets.. there is a lot of money to be made for those 'leaking' these stories

    Dollar moved up a cent yesterday on the back of it


  • Options
    #2067
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    lawred2 wrote:
    These bullcrap leaks by British newspapers are having immediate implications for currency markets.. there is a lot of money to be made for those 'leaking' these stories

    Think that's a real but secondary effect. Think the primary purpose is to suggest things are nearly done so as to get pressure on the EU to sign off on something.

    It's very interesting the 'politics' of the whole thing from purely an observers perspective.


  • Options
    #2068
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    briany wrote: »
    The Irish government can only bend back so far in giving concessions to British Unionists concessions on their identity and culture. What is the point where the rest of Ireland tells them to wind their neck in? Mass Orange Order festival on the banks of the Boyne? The playing of The Sash during the Dublin St. Paddy's Day parade?

    I think we should have a giant 12th parade up O'Connell Street with orange light-up spinning bowler hats and Union Jack sashes for everyone. Why the feck not?

    Excuse for another national holiday and huge piss-up.


  • Options
    #2069
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,518 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Zubeneschamali wrote:
    I think we should have a giant 12th parade up O'Connell Street with orange light-up spinning bowler hats and Union Jack sashes for everyone. Why the feck not?

    You can have that. No problem. In Coventry.


  • Options
    #2070
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,238 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    But if they change the regulations for the UK wouldn't they also need to change the regulations for us?

    The EU financial services regulations can change due to the internal politics of the EU. The UK currently have an input into this due to their membership of the EU. If they accept this deal, they will have no say in any EU regulation changes and will have to accept them and remain in alignment if they want to keep access to the EU services market.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2071
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Tell me how wrote: »
    They can support who they want, similar to Irish living in countries outside of Ireland but to think they will be facilitated within our constitution (whatever that will be) in supporting and having some firm of allegiance to a foreign state or monarch won't happen.

    The tricolour is (was) an issue in the north because of two states claiming the land. It is likely in a future UI, only one state will be claiming the land.

    Very different circumstance.


    Our constitution guarantees them the right to hold Irish or British citizenship or both, remember that GFA works both ways


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement