nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

kuro68k wrote: »

The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Water John

Yes, but it's ambivalent as circumstances have to be demonsratable altered.

charlie14

I may be totally incorrect, but my reading of a border poll under the terms of the GFA is that holding one is at the discretion of the NI secretary of state.
If I am correct could May not really put a gun to everyone`s heads by calling one ?

Water John

Govn't doesn't have to hold an election. Expect a challenge to TM then.

road_high

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Analysis done on Commons numbers for May's deal - 283 MPs considered definite "Yes" voters, 45 possible supporters, and 311 viewed as certain for "No":

http://twitter.com/pswidlicki/status/1060837045587845120

If it gets voted down, what happens then? Election? Or just no deal?
Either way hopefully yhr DUP are a spent force

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

The DUP's allies are the ERG : Davis, Rees-Mogg, Redwood, IDS, Andrea Jenkyns etc.

With friends like these...

Strazdas

Hurrache wrote: »

A not very veiled threat from the DUP. Just who are the DUP's allies? Generally I would say they have none, but in this whole mess of Brexit all sorts of odd allegiances are made, this one with the the DUP and ardent Brexiters.

https://twitter.com/eastantrimmp/status/1060819371537416192

The DUP's allies are the ERG : Davis, Rees-Mogg, Redwood, IDS, Andrea Jenkyns etc.

An Ciarraioch

Analysis done on Commons numbers for May's deal - 283 MPs considered definite "Yes" voters, 45 possible supporters, and 311 viewed as certain for "No":

http://twitter.com/pswidlicki/status/1060837045587845120

Kermit.de.frog

UK cabinet ministers rolling back. Saying NI specific backstop unacceptable etc etc.

At this stage if May turned around to her tory colleagues and said let's have a totally separate arrangement for NI that allows GB fully diverge....they would take it in my opinion.

road_high

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I remember way back at the start of the first thread a few posters here arguing that it would never happen (a sea border) for various reasons and here we are two years later and it is still the only logical and simple solution on the table.

It comes down to cost. The Uk govt can’t afford to fund a massive and pointless border operation in Ireland to appease a few unionist fanatics. All to make them feel more “British”...
It makes zero sense especially if the public finances take a hit already from brexit. The sea is the far cheaper, sensible way around this

Zubeneschamali

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm getting really fed up with the British media failing to even challenge people on any of this. They're accepting the "default to WTO" option as if it's some kind of realistic possibly without even questioning what that might involve.

I don't think this really matters much in practice, since the UK cannot really try and do no deal, it is a feeble bluff and everyone at the negotiations knows it.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I remember way back at the start of the first thread a few posters here arguing that it would never happen (a sea border) for various reasons and here we are two years later and it is still the only logical and simple solution on the table.

Well way back at the start, people mistakenly believed that some kind of logic would prevail and that UK politicians were actually clued in on their briefs. We even thought that they knew Britain was an island.

FrancieBrady

road_high wrote: »

I rarely even bother commenting on Brexit as it’s all been said and done to death by now.
It’s seems to be continually going around in circles with the outcome continuously coming back to logical checks in the Irish Sea. Will be interesting to see if May ploughs on this time- I can’t see what choice she has really.

Yes, I remember way back at the start of the first thread a few posters here arguing that it would never happen (a sea border) for various reasons and here we are two years later and it is still the only logical and simple solution on the table.

road_high

Lemming wrote: »

The phrase "The poppy mafia" was coined a few years ago to refer to this particularly ugly behaviour.

Bold is my emphasis.

The annual poppy outrage seems to go on for longer every year, this year has been particularly bad

First Up

EdgeCase wrote: »

140 days to go and the vast majority of people including most of the political and media talking heads in Britain still don't seem to want to deal with facts or reality.

It is 45 years since the UK had its own trade policy. Nobody in government, the civil service or media under the age of 65 knows what it was like to negotiate and manage trade agreements.

Its not so much the current generation doesn't want to deal with facts; they don't know what the facts are. Raab's pitiful admission if ignorance yesterday is replicated across the country at all levels.

road_high

I rarely even bother commenting on Brexit as it’s all been said and done to death by now.
It’s seems to be continually going around in circles with the outcome continuously coming back to logical checks in the Irish Sea. Will be interesting to see if May ploughs on this time- I can’t see what choice she has really.

Lemming

murphaph wrote: »

It's all linked into the psyche of Brexit, at least indirectly. Remembrance has morphed into a compulsory thing in GB. It's like if you aren't wearing a poppy you're an enemy of the people. Few on TV will dare appear without one. The tolerance and freedom that the men and women who died for especially during WWII is under threat in the UK today.

The phrase "The poppy mafia" was coined a few years ago to refer to this particularly ugly behaviour.

Bold is my emphasis.

Hurrache

A not very veiled threat from the DUP. Just who are the DUP's allies? Generally I would say they have none, but in this whole mess of Brexit all sorts of odd allegiances are made, this one with the the DUP and ardent Brexiters.

https://twitter.com/eastantrimmp/status/1060819371537416192

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Brexit means brexit ,time limited backstop, backstop to a backstop, a no deal includes a deal , we have always been at war with eastasia

I think TM is getting into Humpty Dumpty land where words can mean anything she wants them to - even changing the meaning in the middle of a sentence, and contradicting the first part of the sentence.

'No deal is better than a bad deal' - now if only we knew what deal she is talking about.

LeinsterDub

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well yes. But I was replying to lawred2's post where he said it was in the case of no-deal which is actually no WA.

Of course TM's language has become so opaque due to her constantly trying to change the meaning of things in her attempts to make this process something that it's not, that it seems that 'deal' can mean anything from a WA to a transition and on to an actual FTA with the EU. And anything else in between.

Brexit means brexit ,time limited backstop, backstop to a backstop, a no deal includes a deal , we have always been at war with eastasia

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

This requirement is part of the WA.

The WA agreement covers the time from 29th March 2019 until the end of the transition period, currently expected to end 31st Dec 2020, but could be extended by agreement.

If the 'closest possible' trade agreement with the EU runs into the sand, the the backstop kicks in and border controls are placed in the Irish Sea. NI already has inspections in the Irish Sea for agriculture products and similar things, at a level of 10%, but this will rise to 100%, and include customs and single market checks.

Well yes. But I was replying to lawred2's post where he said it was in the case of no-deal which is actually no WA.

Of course TM's language has become so opaque due to her constantly trying to change the meaning of things in her attempts to make this process something that it's not, that it seems that 'deal' can mean anything from a WA to a transition and on to an actual FTA with the EU. And anything else in between.

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

It most certainly was. What do you mean?

Injured after WW1 for sure and it had begun to dismantle but it was still in existence.

According to Wikipedia 2.5 million Indian soldiers fought for Britain in WW2 and over 300,000 south African volunteers also and both countries amongst others wear poppies to this day...

EdgeCase

It'd be very helpful if the UK even understood what the WTO trade 'option' involves. They don't have anything setup properly with the WTO and it will involve serious amounts of negotiation to ensure that they get a good deal there. It's by no means just a 'default' backstop position in the event of no deal with the EU.

Even any deal with the EU could potentially create major problems in the WTO, and could be subject to a trade dispute by WTO members both with the UK and the EU.

In fact, they may need the help and assistance of the EU (big trade clout) at the WTO to ensure that they're not bullied by other members.

They also forget that compared to the EU the WTO is a shark tank. There's a general philosophy in the EU of trying to create functioning single market. It's not a single country operating on a transactional basis and has far loftier goals to create a bigger, better Europe. The WTO is largely totally transactional in the way members behave and they will fight and squabble over quotas and all sorts of other things and there isn't that same kind of overarching objective of creating something greater than the sum of its parts. The EU isn't just a simple trade organisation, there's a political and even philosophical side to it. The WTO, on the other hand, is just a trade organisation and one that is often pretty fraught and barely functional.

I'm getting really fed up with the British media failing to even challenge people on any of this. They're accepting the "default to WTO" option as if it's some kind of realistic possibly without even questioning what that might involve. The level of critical analysis by most of the media, including the BBC, is absolutely abysmal.

140 days to go and the vast majority of people including most of the political and media talking heads in Britain still don't seem to want to deal with facts or reality.

Mc Love

Brexit Republic Episode 15

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1108/1009612-brexit-republic-episode-fifteen/

Tony's in Helsinki at the EPP's Spitzenkandidat coronation this week (don't worry we explain it and there's more here and he also gives us his Brexit round-up.

Also: No deal and what it means for Irish businesses (spoiler - lot's of paperwork) - BDO's Carol Lynch gives ground level view on what will happen at Irish ports and to Irish businesses if no deal is agreed, or later if a free trade agreement is reached.

Sam Russell

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. But in a no-deal scenario, the UK falls back to WTO rules and WTO requires a hard border. Now the UK can fudge that a bit and pretty much ignore it, but that would lead to delays in getting a UK schedule agreed. So it's not in their interests to feck about with WTO rules when they're relying on the WTO as a fall back. The only thing that confuses me is how that can come about if there's no actual WA.

This requirement is part of the WA.

The WA agreement covers the time from 29th March 2019 until the end of the transition period, currently expected to end 31st Dec 2020, but could be extended by agreement.

If the 'closest possible' trade agreement with the EU runs into the sand, the the backstop kicks in and border controls are placed in the Irish Sea. NI already has inspections in the Irish Sea for agriculture products and similar things, at a level of 10%, but this will rise to 100%, and include customs and single market checks.

Enzokk

lawred2 wrote: »

It most certainly was. What do you mean?

Injured after WW1 for sure and it had begun to dismantle but it was still in existence.

Yes, you are right they still had their empire but it was absolutely dwindling at that time. There was debate in South Africa whether to fight with the British or with Germany, that speaks volumes of where their empire was at the time.

lawred2 wrote: »

Oh I see - so in the eventuality of no deal - to avoid the hard border it's proposed that NI will be in a customs union with the EU?

Isn't a 'deal' proposing pretty much the same?

Well it seems like they are talking about a deal after the deal. So the assumption is that the WA is signed and delivered, then we move into new territory where new deals are to be reached or missed.

The implication is still there that if the WA is not signed then all bets are off on a border. Seems like the language has moved on from that so you can assume that the negotiators on both sides know there really cannot be a no deal on the WA.

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

Oh I see - so in the eventuality of no deal - to avoid the hard border it's proposed that NI will be in a customs union with the EU?

Isn't a 'deal' proposing pretty much the same?

Yeah. But in a no-deal scenario, the UK falls back to WTO rules and WTO requires a hard border. Now the UK can fudge that a bit and pretty much ignore it, but that would lead to delays in getting a UK schedule agreed. So it's not in their interests to feck about with WTO rules when they're relying on the WTO as a fall back. The only thing that confuses me is how that can come about if there's no actual WA.

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

It was a letter from May, you can read it on this tweet, with follow up below from the DUP (sorry for the Start front page appearing, I'll see if I can find a clean Times front page!, edit. found it)
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1060668517454934016

https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1060792028911620096
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1060794623998738432

Oh I see - so in the eventuality of no deal - to avoid the hard border it's proposed that NI will be in a customs union with the EU?

Isn't a 'deal' proposing pretty much the same?

lawred2

Enzokk wrote: »

If you take the poppy as a remembrance for WW1 only then you are right, but the post you quoted mentions WW2 and the UK was in no way an empire at that stage nor did it go to war to only stop another country becoming a super power.

It most certainly was. What do you mean?

Injured after WW1 for sure and it had begun to dismantle but it was still in existence.

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

What has TM or anyone said that has triggered that?

Or is it more leaks..

It was a letter from May, you can read it on this tweet, with follow up below from the DUP.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1060668517454934016

https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1060792032770379781
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1060794623998738432

Enzokk

lawred2 wrote: »

hmmmm

That's a bit of a repainting of why Britain went to war. It was primarily an empire fearing the growth of a super power.

But then to the victors go the spoils and PR is definitely one of the spoils.

If you take the poppy as a remembrance for WW1 only then you are right, but the post you quoted mentions WW2 and the UK was in no way an empire at that stage nor did it go to war to only stop another country becoming a super power.