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.
charlie14 wrote: » Why would they. What benefit would it be to the RoI ?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Jim Allister doing a great job of increasing the anti UI vote in the Republic.
Spook_ie wrote: » Because we could scupper any trade negotiations that might weaken Irish exports, it's a dog eat dog world out there.
Spook_ie wrote: » Just a thought, If the backstop is legally written in with no preconditions, time limits etc. what's to stop Ireland playing real hardball over the trade agreement negotiations? Knowing they have nothing to worry about because the backstop is there.
Call me Al wrote: » I'd foresee him doing a SF on it and refusing to take his seat in the Dáil.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Because most European countries are too small or to weak to compete on the world stage by themselves anymore. This isn't just a European issues, across the world trade blocks are forming or formed.
Anthracite wrote: » The UK was pretty quick to look for help standing up to Russia. I wonder how they would fare in future trade or other conflicts with the rest of the BRICs? Or even future powers like Indonesia?
Imreoir2 wrote: » There is no scenario in which a good trade deal with the UK is not in Irelands interest. I think anyone would have to accept that given the chance, the UK would hold the border hostage in a trade negioation. Taking the issue off the table before the trade negioation begins is in Ireland's interest.
Spook_ie wrote: » If Ireland is exporting more of something to the EU why would we vote the UK a better trade or equal trade deal when we can just play hardball, we have the backstop and nothing to lose, maybe it might be something on the services side, we can still play hardball and no fallback for the UK take it or leave it.
Call me Al wrote: » I'd foresee him doing a SF on it and refusing to take his seat in the D.
Anthracite wrote: » And what of our trade with the UK?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Word is that talks have broken down between the EU and UK negotiating teams - they broke down at 2:45 am in the morning apparently last night. So, we are in to a period of brinkmanship.
prawnsambo wrote: » We won't be doing any bilateral trade deals with the UK anyway. That's part of what being in the EU is all about. Yes, we'll have a say in that deal, but it's going to be negotiated on behalf of the 27.
Water John wrote: » Nolan just has a diff more aggressive style but it doesn't bother me. He is really showing up the idiots.
Enzokk wrote: » We have plenty to worry about, even if we get the backstop. The backstop does not guarantee that our trade with the whole of the UK continues as close to it is as we currently trade with them, only that there will not be a border on the island. So it is still very much in our interests to secure a trade deal with the UK that actually prevents the backstop from coming into force.
10000maniacs wrote: » May in her speech tonight wants control over laws, borders, money and the ability to strike trade deals with countries outside the EU. She wants to honour what the British people voted for. In other words she had a very bad meeting with the Brexiteers today and its no deal. Sad day for the Nationalists (and some Unionists) in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. That's probably it folks.
jm08 wrote: » When he resigned from the DUP he lost his European seat to Diane Dodds. He came 2nd to Ian Paisley Junior in General Election, so I don't think he would have the support to make it to the Dail anyway.
Peregrinus wrote: » (A) Self-interest, and (b) pressure from the EU. Self-interest, because a close EU/UK trade deal is very much in our interests. All forms of Brexit are bad for Ireland, but the softer the Brexit the less bad for us. The UK is one of our major export markets; barriers to trade between the UK and the EU hit us worse than any other country in the EU-27. Plus, the better the trade deal the UK gets with the EU, the less pressure there is to make the border harder, and the less incentive the UK has to try to get out of any no-hard-border commitments they have made. From every point of view, therefore, a sweet, sweet deal for the UK is very much in our interests, and when the time comes for this negotiation we'll be huge cheerleaders for the UK. And, even if none of that were true, in the EU solidarity works both ways. We have been supported on the no-hard-border issue by the EU in a most impressive fashion, because it's an existential issue for us. We can't then turn around and pursue our own narrow sectional interests regarding a UK trade deal and expect everybody else to say "yeah, that's fine". The EU veto system works precisely because of the expectation that it will be rarely used, and that vetos won't be deployed except for really serious reasons, and only after considering both the national interest and the interests of the Union as a whole. If the EU wanted a trade deal on terms that we were seeking to veto, there'd be some serious conversations about why we needed to veto it. "We spot an opportunity for some competetive advantage over certain UK producers" is a stance that would cost us very dearly.
Spook_ie wrote: » Yeah, but in the self centred world of dog eat dog, remember we refuse to budge on corporation tax etc. the EU could do nothing but suck it up.
Peregrinus wrote: » The EU could do nothing. EU member states, by contrast, could do quite a lot. It's a completely separate issue from Brexit, but the notion that simply by drawing a red line around our corporation tax rules we can insulate ourselves from any effects caused by the stances and actions of others is the Irish version of the Brexiter mindset. It won't survive an encounter with reality.
Spook_ie wrote: » EU member states could do nothing that was against EU rules.
J Mysterio wrote: » Scary stuff. British society is breaking down and really seems to be on the brink of chaos. Historically speaking - with some obvious but notable exceptions - I would have considered the UK to be a reliable or consistent country, with predictable attitudes and a deliberate, measured approach. More and more this seems a thing of the past though, and to be more representative of the 'old Britain'. Ireland has changed dramitacally in 50 years, but we have been looking forward. Building on the foundations laid by the constitution, we have slowly and surely developed this country, latterly by joining the EEA and EU. We look forward with positivity, busying ourselves in enthusastically tackling consitutional issues, but in an informed, adult and respectful way. Britain seems to be the opposite - it is looking backwards and has been for some time. Britain is not what it was and resentment has built up. Where did it go wrong they wonder? How can the country that 'brought civilization' and 'the rule of law' to half the known world - making much of it theirs - have lost such power and influence and respect? I watched a lot of Hitchens today - both brothers - and I found one interview particularly interesting. It is Peter Hitchens being interviewed on C-Span, ostensibly to promote his book; 'The Abolition of Britain'. It's from 2000, but is still relevant. Wheras Christopher is of the left and rails against God and the establishment (and most any institution), Peter is very much of the right and for 'the establishment' and all the things you might think of when you think of the British Empire. The Aboliton of Britain is ostensibly his account of the end of that 'old Britain' and its transformation into the Britain of today. A lesser Britain in his view, it is a lament. A Britain diminished by a loss of or disfigurement to its values or it's character and how it is at risk of being fully shorn of the qualities that made Britain 'great'. While this predates Brexit considerably, I find it interesting as I feel he is elucidating something many Brexiters feel but can't properly articulate. It is like a trauma at the rapid globalisation we have experienced and how this has changed the UK forever. Others like the DUP, for example, cannot accept this either - though in their case they are entirely backward. I appreciate some of his points, such as a loss of civility, and the threat to the imagination and the homogenisation of youth posed/ caused by mass culture (something Michael D touched on in his inauguration speech), but I feel he is being overly romantic, overly conservative and a little backward too. However, the key element seems to be that the UK has not coped with Globalisation and its concurrent loss of influence. For so long they have been the exporters and purveyors of culture to a global audience. But things have changed so drastically: their influence is greatly reduced and indeed society at home is dreadfully unequal and divided. The lack of planning in the integration of immigrant communities has been particuarly disastrous. An unmitigated disaster which seems to now have the Orwellian Hostile Environment prescribed as a cure. A remedy which is badly affecting good and law abiding citizens and is creating a fervile atmosphere. Large sections of society completely disaffected, unsupported and at odds with each other. No go areas and no opportunity areas. Seemingly worsening class divisons. Racial hatred and ghettoisation. A horrifying stabbing/ acid attack epidemic in London. Things are very bad indeed and the UK need to come to terms with this, though I don't see that it is possible in the current context and with the crowd on offer. A limping, teetering government sponsored by backwards extremists and half full of semi demented nationalists suffering Post Empire Stress Disorder. An opposition waiting for it to die no matter the cost, refusing to turn off the life support, not even to ease the suffering. It's a bloody sad and disastrous situation and its just going to get worse.
