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

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

This is insulting. And I'm not Irish. UK took other countries' land by hook or crook, usually by force, abused their colonies causing famines (India, Ireland), shooting civilians (India). What concept are you talking about? Of course no one wanted to be conquered an governed by foreign imperial power.

EU is no analogy of the brutality and repression of the British Empire. EU is a union of independent countries, union of equals, who willingly came together to share small part of their sovereignty to work as a group which has much higher leverage in international trade and diplomacy than 28 small to average sized countries.

This, pretty much. We've been in an empire. We've been in the European Union. We know the difference.

Brexiters who advance arguments that rest on an assumed parallel here are just confirming the popular prejudice that arguments for Brexit are ultimately rooted in ignorance. They would do more good for the Brexity cause by remaining silent.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

The current position of the major parties is that Brexit must proceed. Neither favours a further referendum.

Labour's view is that is should proceed on a different deal, negotiated by a Labour government, which meets Labour's "six tests". No such deal is possible, of course, but presumably what Labour would intend is to renegotiate with a different set of priorities, make different compromises, and come up with a different compromise deal.

The Tories' view is unclear. Th (current) party leadership backs the current deal, but it obviously doesn't enjoy universal support among the parliamentary party. By the time of the general election there might be a different party leadership, or the party leadership might have changed its view and campaign on the basis of renegotiating the deal with a tweaked set of priorities leading to yet a different compromise again.

Neither view is remotely realistic. EU priorities and objectives are not going to change, and the EU has all the strategic advantage and negotiating muscle. It's unlikely they would agree to anything but minimal renegotiation, and unlikely that any renegotiated deal would be radically different from this one.

In short, I think as matters stand a general election would solve nothing. Both parties would be offering an unrealistic stance leading to a compromise deal not very different from the present one. If you think the present deal is tolerable, vote Tory. If you think a deal renegotiated by Labour offers a fair prospect of being slightly more tolerable, vote Labour. Neither party will campaing on a manifesto to remain. Neither party will campaign on a manifesto to implement a no-deal brexit.

Another GE will solve little as there is not a credible remain party. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the lib dems are perceived as a wasted vote by many.
Labour would make a material difference to the eu deal if they achieved a sufficient majority as they would look to stay in both the customs union and the economic area.
It would be even softer brexit, which the eu would, I'd imagine, be even happier with.
The potential economic uplift would be sadly more than countered by capital fleeing at the first sign of Mcdonald.

McGiver

ThePanjandrum wrote:

We disagree with the concept, much as Ireland did with the UK before independence.

This is insulting. And I'm not Irish. UK took other countries' land by hook or crook, usually by force, abused their colonies causing famines (India, Ireland), shooting civilians (India). What concept are you talking about? Of course no one wanted to be conquered an governed by foreign imperial power.

EU is no analogy of the brutality and repression of the British Empire. EU is a union of independent countries, union of equals, who willingly came together to share small part of their sovereignty to work as a group which has much higher leverage in international trade and diplomacy than 28 small to average sized countries.

flatty

Water John wrote: »

The Monster Raving Lunatic Party had more support than Irexit will ever have.

You say that, but irexit had a lot of support after the troika moved in a mere decade ago.
People have short memories.
I would also point out that it is easy for us to grin knowingly from the sideline. If we had had to make a huge net contribution to the eu since we joined, there would be considerably more anti - eu sentiment here.
I'm hugely pro eu, would happily pay extra tax to support it (and more again to unite Ireland again), and I think brexit is an appalling backwards step, created and driven by idiots and bigots, but the benefit to us of the eu has been demonstrably huge year on year to the average punter. The benefits to the UK have been huge also, but more nebulous.

Peregrinus

smelly sock wrote: »

So when have they the new Brexit vote pencilled in for?

They really are just delaying the obvious.

Consideration by European Council comes first, on 25 November.

Vote in Westminister currently expected to be in first week of December or thereabouts.

Note that a rejection in that vote isn't necessarily the end of the story. To avoid no-deal Brexit (which huge majority in Parliament desperately wants to avoid) Parliament still has to affirmatively choose something. That something could still be this deal, or something very very very like it, considered afresh in January by an increasingly terrified Parliament.

smelly sock

So when have they the new Brexit vote pencilled in for?

They really are just delaying the obvious.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't see how (in the context of a GE) that Labour could realistically promise a different deal. The time span is far too short. The next but one EuCo is in mid-December afaik and there isn't another one until just before brexit day. There'd obviously be a possibility of shoe-horning one in between, but you'd have to think people in Europe are exasperated and fatigued with the whole sorry mess at this stage. The possibility of having to enter new negotiations sometime early next year would be slim to none.

And Labour would be just as likely to be looking for flying unicorns as the Tories. They aren't exactly over-flowing with intellectual giants either.

The big advantage Labour has is that they're not the Tories.

And don't be tempted to minimise that; it's a huge advantage. Were the Tories to be returned to office at the next election, they'd be a four-term government. That's a rare achievement in UK politics; a government has to be travelling pretty well to get elected to a fourth term.

Does the Tory party today look like a potential four-term government to you? No, me neither. So my sense is that, for all Labour's faults and problems, the tide is flowing strongly their way. The next election is theirs to lose.

They could lose it, since - sorry, Jeremy - the quality of leadership in the Labour party these days is almost as bad as in the Tories. But I don't think they'll lose it on their Brexit stance. The Tories have made such an absolute, five-star, grade A hames of the Brexit process that everyone will feel that there must be some chance that Labour would make a marginally better fist of it, and they couldn't possibly make a worse. So, on Brexit, Labour has the edge.

Yes, there is no real prospect that if they took power they could renegotiate the Brexit deal in any material way. Tweak it, possibly. Simplify it by committing to a Customs Union, which is their policy, and by dropping some of the folderols included to try (unsuccessfully) to placate the DUP. But the EU will have no appetite for a significant renegotiation, or for a delay of Brexit by more than a few weeks to allow time for renegotiation, and their objectives, priorities etc (and their strategic advantage in any negotiations) are not going to change.

So, yes, Labour can't realistically promise a different deal. But they can unrealistically promise a different deal, and realistically deliver a cosmetically different deal. And by the time they deliver it, or even by the time they promise it in an election, that may be OK by the country, because the awareness of the awful reality of a no-deal Brexit grows by the day.

prawnsambo

Apparently this is how you do it

If only the politicians in charge of the whole process had put in the same effort. And as an illustration of that:

Former head of the Foreign Office has a different view of how things went under David Davis' watch.

How anyone can listen to these charlatans: Davis, Raab, Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al and think that their witterings are believable beggars belief.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The current position of the major parties is that Brexit must proceed. Neither favours a further referendum.

Labour's view is that is should proceed on a different deal, negotiated by a Labour government, which meets Labour's "six tests". No such deal is possible, of course, but presumably what Labour would intend is to renegotiate with a different set of priorities, make different compromises, and come up with a different compromise deal.

The Tories' view is unclear. Th (current) party leadership backs the current deal, but it obviously doesn't enjoy universal support among the parliamentary party. By the time of the general election there might be a different party leadership, or the party leadership might have changed its view and campaign on the basis of renegotiating the deal with a tweaked set of priorities leading to yet a different compromise again.

Neither view is remotely realistic. EU priorities and objectives are not going to change, and the EU has all the strategic advantage and negotiating muscle. It's unlikely they would agree to anything but minimal renegotiation, and unlikely that any renegotiated deal would be radically different from this one.

In short, I think as matters stand a general election would solve nothing. Both parties would be offering an unrealistic stance leading to a compromise deal not very different from the present one. If you think the present deal is tolerable, vote Tory. If you think a deal renegotiated by Labour offers a fair prospect of being slightly more tolerable, vote Labour. Neither party will campaing on a manifesto to remain. Neither party will campaign on a manifesto to implement a no-deal brexit.

I don't see how (in the context of a GE) that Labour could realistically promise a different deal. The time span is far too short. The next but one EuCo is in mid-December afaik and there isn't another one until just before brexit day. There'd obviously be a possibility of shoe-horning one in between, but you'd have to think people in Europe are exasperated and fatigued with the whole sorry mess at this stage. The possibility of having to enter new negotiations sometime early next year would be slim to none.

And Labour would be just as likely to be looking for flying unicorns as the Tories. They aren't exactly over-flowing with intellectual giants either.

ARNOLD J RIMMER

TM Live on LBC

LuckyLloyd

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish Government have done magnificently well to create the narrative that the GFA requires an open border.

It doesn't. A hard border would go against the spirit of the GFA, but technically it wouldn't break the GFA. Agriculture is the main area that would require a soft border. Checks on agricultural shipments to the UK from Northern Ireland are not unknown.

There are huge practical issues with a hard border, and there are the "good republicans" to consider, but legally, the GFA doesn't require a soft Brexit.

You and those like you must be quietly seething at recent events.

gizmo23

Peregrinus wrote: »

The current position of the major parties is that Brexit must proceed. Neither favours a further referendum.

Labour's view is that is should proceed on a different deal, negotiated by a Labour government, which meets Labour's "six tests". No such deal is possible, of course, but presumably what Labour would intend is to renegotiate with a different set of priorities, make different compromises, and come up with a different compromise deal.

The Tories' view is unclear. Th (current) party leadership backs the current deal, but it obviously doesn't enjoy universal support among the parliamentary party. By the time of the general election there might be a different party leadership, or the party leadership might have changed its view and campaign on the basis of renegotiating the deal with a tweaked set of priorities leading to yet a different compromise again.

Neither view is remotely realistic. EU priorities and objectives are not going to change, and the EU has all the strategic advantage and negotiating muscle. It's unlikely they would agree to anything but minimal renegotiation, and unlikely that any renegotiated deal would be radically different from this one.

In short, I think as matters stand a general election would solve nothing. Both parties would be offering an unrealistic stance leading to a compromise deal not very different from the present one. If you think the present deal is tolerable, vote Tory. If you think a deal renegotiated by Labour offers a fair prospect of being slightly more tolerable, vote Labour. Neither party will campaing on a manifesto to remain. Neither party will campaign on a manifesto to implement a no-deal brexit.

For my admittedly little knowledge this is the way it's going.. Labour keep beating the 2nd referendum drum... but they are saying only if they don't get a general election.

Again my little knowledge of the arguments it is heading towards a general election IF the current deal doesn't pass the HOC. Which in the current climate seems unlikely.

Peregrinus

The current position of the major parties is that Brexit must proceed. Neither favours a further referendum.

Labour's view is that is should proceed on a different deal, negotiated by a Labour government, which meets Labour's "six tests". No such deal is possible, of course, but presumably what Labour would intend is to renegotiate with a different set of priorities, make different compromises, and come up with a different compromise deal.

The Tories' view is unclear. Th (current) party leadership backs the current deal, but it obviously doesn't enjoy universal support among the parliamentary party. By the time of the general election there might be a different party leadership, or the party leadership might have changed its view and campaign on the basis of renegotiating the deal with a tweaked set of priorities leading to yet a different compromise again.

Neither view is remotely realistic. EU priorities and objectives are not going to change, and the EU has all the strategic advantage and negotiating muscle. It's unlikely they would agree to anything but minimal renegotiation, and unlikely that any renegotiated deal would be radically different from this one.

In short, I think as matters stand a general election would solve nothing. Both parties would be offering an unrealistic stance leading to a compromise deal not very different from the present one. If you think the present deal is tolerable, vote Tory. If you think a deal renegotiated by Labour offers a fair prospect of being slightly more tolerable, vote Labour. Neither party will campaing on a manifesto to remain. Neither party will campaign on a manifesto to implement a no-deal brexit.

daheff

seamus wrote: »

In the event that GE results, it will probably become a de facto referendum with parties campaigning on the basis of whether they'll cancel Brexit, accept the existing deal, or try to negotiate a new deal.

that was expected of the last election, but it never materialised.
Labour would have been a slam dunk elected to power if they campaigned like that... but chose not to.

Zubeneschamali

Anthracite wrote: »

Currently polling somewhere below the Inkatha Freedom Party, I'd guess.

I think they might be above Inkatha, just below the Pre-Vatican II Latin Mass Lunacy party.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish Government have done magnificently well to create the narrative that the GFA requires an open border.

It doesn't. A hard border would go against the spirit of the GFA, but technically it wouldn't break the GFA. Agriculture is the main area that would require a soft border. Checks on agricultural shipments to the UK from Northern Ireland are not unknown.

There are huge practical issues with a hard border, and there are the "good republicans" to consider, but legally, the GFA doesn't require a soft Brexit.

Correct. The GFA doesn't say there must be an open border. It doesn't mention the border at all.

But that's because the border was already open before the GFA was negotiated and signed; the GFA didn't need to address it. An open border in Ireland is part of the context within which the GFA was arrived at, and within which it operates. A hard border may not breach the excplicit terms of the GFA, but it may fatally undermine the ground on which the GFA stands; the context within which it makes sense, and is workable. This isn't a narrative created by by the Irish government; it's something that the UK government has accepted all along, which is why they committed to "no hard border" before the EU did.

fash

I don't understand the level of UK dislike:
UK has the option to remain in a customs Union after the transition period if it wants to (let's call that the "kiddie pool" before heading off into the shark infested waters of international trade).
To level the kiddies pool, all it has to do is propose to leave NI in the SM/CU (this solution is guaranteed to be ok with the EU) to avoid a hard border.
It can even avoid doing that coming up with any other effective solution as regards avoiding a hard NI border which the EU must in good faith consider and have decided by a neutral body.

Aside from people hating for political gain, assuming the plan was to brexit, what's so wrong with that?

It seems to me that the brexiters simply want chaos as that furthers their aims, remainers think the chaos will get them back to the EU, and Labour just wants a general election (and not to be responsible) so will disagree with it no matter what.

murphaph

theguzman wrote: »

Irexit Freedom Party
https://www.irexitfreedom.ie/

They are holding a meeting in Galway this weekend I believe.

Fianna Fail are currently experiencing alot of internal conflict as are Sinn Fein currently.

We have Pravada RTE providing liberal brainwashing on a daily basis and the rest of Private Media is currently controlled by a FG sympathiser.

Ireland and the UK are much more similar than you think.

Strongly disagree. The vast majority of the Irish electorate knew even before Brexit that leaving the EU would be just about as foolish a thing a small open economy could do.

Let's call a spade a spade. It's arrogance that has the British in the position they are in now. I think that level of arrogance is simply not to be found in Ireland. That's the key difference. Millions of Brits think they are simply superior to those continentals. We don't.

[Deleted User]

My prediction is a failure to get it through Commons followed by a second referendum. The EU has said no more negotiations about this, and the argument will be made that people didn't vote for no deal. So the referendum will be leave with no deal or stay.

EdgeCase

I would strongly suspect that Hungary, Poland et al. will end up being left out in the cold if things continue the way they’re going.

There’s strong evidence of a more rapidly developing inner Europe, largely based around the core Eurozone founders, and then there’s the rest who are only really along for the ride.

I’d say given a decade or so you’ll see a core and periphery type scenario emerging and probably a rollback on further accession programs or at least a far more cautious approach to them.

Paradoxically, the UK was actually one of the most enthusiastic drivers of EU accession programmes and the big opening up of membership to Eastern Europe and also was the most enthusiastic proponent of Turkish accession talks.

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

That's always been the case when you scratch the surface. You've all sorts of identity politics around regions and class in England but you've also got national systems within the Westminster system. The way Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular but also Wales operate within Westminster but as quasi independent "states" is bizzare by any comparison. It's a total kludge and there's no logic to it other than a fear of federalism.

Realistically Westminster should be a federal parliament with Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and probably at least 4 English regional states with fully devolved governments doing their own thing. Westminster should only be focused on the big picture stuff that impacts the whole UK.

I've always thought the biggest problem in the UK is a long history of over centralisation of power. There's a ruling elite who can't seem to let go of power and properly devolve authority. There's only a couple of decades of devolution since New Labour's era and no history of a federal democracy, even though it's plainly obvious that one was always needed.

In my opinion the inability to devolve proper properly is also why they struggle to work in a multilateral organisation like the EU. The political culture is entirely about centralising power in an elite group in London. The notion of pooling sovereignty or devolving aspects of power to somwhere else is a complete anathema to an aspect of British political culture - mostly reflected in the right wing of the Tories

Likewise, it's why the Empire failed. The USA evolved because the colonies were insufficiency independent and grossly under representated in decision making, plenty of other examples of similar and even closer to home Ireland was merged into the UK in 1801 faced totally inappropriate policies and a famine 40 years later and basically the unresponsive, remote and often highly condescending central government in London pretty much laid the foundations for uprisings and the eventual exit from the UK just over a century after we had "joined."

I don't see this as being a wake up moment either. They'll crash out and there'll be no real public dissection of what happened. Academics and loftier publications may well debate it and discuss it but the general public won’t. If anything I would suspect any economic consequences will be blamed on the EU for not simply turning itself inside out and bending to the will of a 3rd party state.

Some good points here. The very nature of the UK and its current set up lends itself to division. A kingdom of 65m people and four constituent nations with one huge one totally dominating the other three is a recipe for possible trouble and now the toxicity of the Brexit vote by the big nation has brought things to a head.

breatheme

theguzman wrote: »

OK, the EU is forcing countries to accept refugees, this brings security concerns, Islamic Immigration as a result of EU policy undermines the entire social order and security of the EU.

Fine. Let's talk about the refugee crisis.

First of all, a video about the refugee crisis from 2015, to get the gears running:

(2015 was the worst year in terms of asylum seekers. This also puts the numbers into perspective.)

Not one country is forcing another country to accept refugees. Germany did think it was fair that refugees were spread more evenly across the EU, but lacked any mechanism to actually enforce this.

But let's look at how many asylum seekers actually get accepted per country.

And let's also look at how many people were relocated under the EU's emergency relocation schemes. (Schemes in order to reduce the burden on Italy and Greece.)

Some things to take into account:

The number of asylum seekers has dropped in 2016 and 2017.
Not every applicant is granted asylum.
Poland and Hungary have taken zero (that is, 0) refugees.
Not only that, the UK itself took 0 relocations from Italy and Greece.

In Poland last weekend thousands marched and burned EU flags.

The only reason the EU hasn't long told the UK to go whistle and to enjoy a trip to no-deal land is because of the Irish border. If Poland and Hungary wanted to leave and tried the same theatrics they would doubtlessly not be entertained. They can express their dramatic discontent and flex all the muscles they want, but they're not leaving because they are net beneficiaries of EU funds and will continue to be for a while. Leaving would turn their countries into third world puddles. So if they want to make some noise, after taking no refugees whatsoever, excuse if I roll my eyes.

If Poland wants to burn EU flags then they can go ahead and leave. I'll wait for that sitting in a chair, mind you, because it'll be a while.

The way of life is destroyed as so many are swamped in Debt or else working hand to mouth, EU migration into Ireland has caused this as wages were kept artificially low. The Euro has been a disaster for Ireland as we don't have a monetary policy. We should return to the Punt pegged to Gold.

EU migrants in Ireland are generally higher educated and tax contributors. Not a single currency in the world right now is backed by gold. And EU membership and its opening up of the single market to Irish business and entrepreneurs makes Ireland a richer country.

Sure. Ireland has problems. The EU has problems. But I believe wholeheartedly that the EU has brought more good than bad. I also try to do my part by engaging in politics at a local and European level.

EdgeCase

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Watching Question Time from Wales - the UK is in some mess. It is reverting to very ugly tribalism.

That's always been the case when you scratch the surface. You've all sorts of identity politics around regions and class in England but you've also got national systems within the Westminster system. The way Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular but also Wales operate within Westminster but as quasi independent "states" is bizzare by any comparison. It's a total kludge and there's no logic to it other than a fear of federalism.

Realistically Westminster should be a federal parliament with Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and probably at least 4 English regional states with fully devolved governments doing their own thing. Westminster should only be focused on the big picture stuff that impacts the whole UK.

I've always thought the biggest problem in the UK is a long history of over centralisation of power. There's a ruling elite who can't seem to let go of power and properly devolve authority. There's only a couple of decades of devolution since New Labour's era and no history of a federal democracy, even though it's plainly obvious that one was always needed.

In my opinion the inability to devolve proper properly is also why they struggle to work in a multilateral organisation like the EU. The political culture is entirely about centralising power in an elite group in London. The notion of pooling sovereignty or devolving aspects of power to somwhere else is a complete anathema to an aspect of British political culture - mostly reflected in the right wing of the Tories

Likewise, it's why the Empire failed. The USA evolved because the colonies were insufficiency independent and grossly under representated in decision making, plenty of other examples of similar and even closer to home Ireland was merged into the UK in 1801 faced totally inappropriate policies and a famine 40 years later and basically the unresponsive, remote and often highly condescending central government in London pretty much laid the foundations for uprisings and the eventual exit from the UK just over a century after we had "joined."

I don't see this as being a wake up moment either. They'll crash out and there'll be no real public dissection of what happened. Academics and loftier publications may well debate it and discuss it but the general public won’t. If anything I would suspect any economic consequences will be blamed on the EU for not simply turning itself inside out and bending to the will of a 3rd party state.

Tell me how

Question Time is mental tonight.

FrancieBrady

Watching Question Time from Wales - the UK is in some mess. It is reverting to very ugly tribalism.

EdgeCase

Shelga wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, and I shouldn't have said Ireland when what I meant was the Republic of Ireland.

But I feel that Northern Ireland is just too far gone now in terms of its identity- it's not British, but it's not Irish. It's Northern Irish. I don't know, I just don't think that people should just assume everyone here would gleefully welcome them back. If a significant majority there wanted it, 60%+, then maybe.

I think you'd probably be looking at a federal Ireland for a long period of time, possibly even permanently. It's been separated for almost a century at this stage and the two jurisdictions have developed in parallel and quite differently, especially in terms of politics and more recently in social policy too.

Capt'n Midnight

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well that’s not quite true. It might not deliver on everything that May promised she would bring back, it gives away quite a lot during the transition period, and it crosses red lines aplenty.. humiliating, certainly. But not fatal.

But if you read on into the future relationship it does deliver an end to paying money, an end to the ECJ oversight and it actually will be a Brexit

On balance it doesn't benefit the UK.

Yes it's the best possible deal in the circumstances, but that just shows how little is possible.

"It's not the ultimate Brexit ... but the freedom to achieve it"

Water John

Michael Portillo says it hasn't a hope of being passed by Parliament.

EdgeCase

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

We disagree with the concept, much as Ireland did with the UK before independence.

And you are completely free to leave the EU anytime you like. You simply don't get to keep all the benefits. Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving the EU. There are simply practical consequences, these are likely to also include profound economic consequences. They're nothing to do with anyone stopping you leaving.

When Ireland attempted to leave the UK you sent over the army, paramilitary police, shelled Dublin and burnt much of Cork City to the ground.

The comparison is utterly ludicrous and shows a total lack of awareness of history.

The EU has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to facilitate a former member other than out of politeness and as a sense of neighbourly friendship and to ensure it doesn't cause regional or global economic shock or at least to attempt to mitigate that.

The moment the UK declared a referendum result the EU started preparing a path for a smooth exit.

They were called names, ranted at, raved at by tabloids and various political figures.

You're free to leave any time! Quite literally nothing is stopping you.

However, a referendum doesn't absolve the UK from practical realities.

Capt'n Midnight

Shelga wrote: »

I'm not so sure people in the Republic would want a united Ireland. I think a lot would have to seriously consider all of the financial implications, never mind the fact that unionists would be up in arms, literally. There are a lot of orange towns in NI that are deeply unpleasant places to even drive through. I don't want that as part of Ireland.

NI is a basket case now.

But it's not that different from down here apart from whether it's Dublin or Westminster calling the shots. Foreign Direct investment into the province would increase if it were part of ROI because it would be like an ROI with cheaper wages at the start. Get people working and social welfare costs drop. Our per capita GDP would drop so some savings on EU contributions.

It would probably be cheaper than the bank bailout, and could break even in a decade.

Parts of Limerick and Dublin aren't nice, just don't go to those places.