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

Hurrache

Gintonious wrote: »

Jesus, I was just there and its no better!

I was wondering why my side was warm.

Frank Bullitt

Hurrache wrote: »

Flicked over to the Tonight Show to see what the craic is there regarding the latest, Declan Ganley and Hermann Kelly together on the panel. It's really bringing in the dregs for 'analysis'. Off to bed with Twitter instead.

Jesus, I was just there and its no better!

Hurrache

Flicked over to the Tonight Show to see what the craic is there regarding the latest, Declan Ganley and Hermann Kelly together on the panel. It's really bringing in the dregs for 'analysis'. Off to bed with Twitter instead.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

a hard border down the Irish Sea is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland.

blanch152 wrote: »

Look, a hard border blocks trade. Trade with the rest of the UK is more important to Northern Ireland than trade with the EU.

Nobody is speaking of a hard border down the Irish Sea, except you and the DUP.

The DUP do not represent the majority in the North. Business interests in the north don't even share you and the DUP's objections to current generous EU proposals.

romantic dreamers who are blinkered by the thought of a united Ireland.

The 'dreamers' seem to be growing ever-greater in number and diversity.

Capt'n Midnight

sink wrote: »

It is anti-competitive for one competitor to be bound by greater restriction than another. For example in agriculture the UK may allow the use of pesticides which are banned in the EU on environmental grounds. This pesticide may be cheaper or more efficient than what is permitted within the EU, thus when exporting to the EU it would give UK agricultural producers an unfair advantage over their EU competition.

This is exactly why the deal says that the UK has to follow EU rules during the transition phase.

The UK would like these cherries

It's one of the reasons behind all the discussion about the border and which set of rules NI would follow.

First Up

blanch152 wrote: »

Infini wrote: »

The problem though is that NI will suffer potential DEPRESSION level conditions as a result of a hard brexit and lack of any investment. On top of that NI people say is unaffordable but to be honest having the province severely overreliant on the UK treasury which will be potentially skint because of Brexit isnt any better.

Some have said that a border down the Irish Sea is worse but lets be clear, a sea border is a natural border and much easier to enforce as the ports and airports would be the primary locations for goods invound and outbound than the Land border which is porous, has hundreds of crossing points and is a magnet for trouble which is why theres so many railing against it. The 2nd thing about the sea border is that it would be primarily checks on incoming goods not necessarily outbound. Theres also been little information as to how a Sea border would be worse exactly where as its been very detailed on how detrimental the Land border would be.

Look, a hard border blocks trade. Trade with the rest of the UK is more important to Northern Ireland than trade with the EU. That is an economic reality.

NI will suffer potential depression levels whether the hard border is with the rest of the UK or with the EU. What you and many others haven't thought of is that if the hard border is down the Irish Sea and the resultant depression hits them, who will they blame? The Southern government.

A hard border down the Irish Sea is no solution, and those who think it is are romantic dreamers who are blinkered by the thought of a united Ireland.

I'm not the least bothered about a united Ireland and I would much prefer a border in Ireland to barriers to our trade in the EU.

But the UK government has repeatedly commited to a border-less Ireland. The only way that can be achieved is by them staying in the customs union and I hope they do.

But if they don't, then the UK has to decide which of its contradictory promises it will break. It has only itself to blame for being in that position.

Anthracite

blanch152 wrote: »

Look, a hard border blocks trade.

Do you know what else blocks trade? 20 miles of sea.

briany

Infini wrote: »

The problem though is that NI will suffer potential DEPRESSION level conditions as a result of a hard brexit and lack of any investment. On top of that NI people say is unaffordable but to be honest having the province severely overreliant on the UK treasury which will be potentially skint because of Brexit isnt any better.

Some have said that a border down the Irish Sea is worse but lets be clear, a sea border is a natural border and much easier to enforce as the ports and airports would be the primary locations for goods invound and outbound than the Land border which is porous, has hundreds of crossing points and is a magnet for trouble which is why theres so many railing against it. The 2nd thing about the sea border is that it would be primarily checks on incoming goods not necessarily outbound. Theres also been little information as to how a Sea border would be worse exactly where as its been very detailed on how detrimental the Land border would be.

A sea border has its own set of quagmires. If it's true that a land border (or any more so than already exists) contravenes the GFA, then the same must be true of a sea border. It's not a case of one border being more natural than the other, but more so this idea of NI holding citizenship of the UK/Ireland and being able to freely assert that. The DUP seem to feel that the GFA was always weighted in the interest of Nationalists, and erecting a sea border would do nothing to allay this concern. The fact is that a sea or land border will only erode political trust and stability in Northern Ireland. The UK cannot have a clean Brexit as long as the GFA is in place, they wish to fully preserve the integrity of the UK and the RoI remains an EU member itself.

Secondly, which trumps which? See, I'd always (naively?) assumed that a state can freely trade within itself, or at least set the terms of how it trades within itself, but now we're talking about taking one bit of a state and placing in, essentially, a separate economic bloc from the rest, and then having an outside party having a say in how the UK trades internally. And this isn't even a situation where there's any kind of territorial dispute (well, not any more), and sovereignty is fully agreed and recognised. If there is precedent and procedure for how unique setup can be smoothly run, it hasn't been well-enough publicised.

sink

RobMc59 wrote: »

How is it anti competitive to undercut the EU?Surely it is anti competitive for a large cartel to set prices and tariffs ,as the energy companies in the UK have done in the past.

It is anti-competitive for one competitor to be bound by greater restriction than another. For example in agriculture the UK may allow the use of pesticides which are banned in the EU on environmental grounds. This pesticide may be cheaper or more efficient than what is permitted within the EU, thus when exporting to the EU it would give UK agricultural producers an unfair advantage over their EU competition. The EU would combat this by restricting the import of UK agricultural goods to that which have been demonstrably produced without the aid banned pesticides. This would of course require some level of bureaucracy and inspection at borders.

Capt'n Midnight

josip wrote: »

It looks like Spain are taking the DUP role on the EU side.

Like the ERG this is some sabre rattling.

Spain on it's own* can't affect the Brexit deal, any more than the ERG can win a leadership contest with maybe 25 letters out of 315 Tory MPs.

The difference is that if there is no deal then Spain have a veto.

All the ERG can do is try and run down the clock.

However, if the courts decide that Article 50 can be halted by the UK then the UK government, perhaps with the help of the opposition, have a choice other than No Deal if the May's deal can't get through parliament.

Anyone remember how many MP's were pro-remain before the referendum ?
A free vote could sort out this mess, but the UK political system, like the US one is giving control to the extremists.

* https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/key-eu-policy-areas/brexit_en

The (EU) Parliament must give its consent through a simple majority vote, including from UK MEPs.

The Council will conclude the agreement and under the Treaty on European Union this can be done by a vote of strong qualified majority (i.e. 20 countries representing 65% of the EU27 population).

The UK must also approve the agreement according to its own constitutional arrangements.

If there is no agreement reached the EU Treaties will simply cease to apply to the UK.

blanch152

Infini wrote: »

The problem though is that NI will suffer potential DEPRESSION level conditions as a result of a hard brexit and lack of any investment. On top of that NI people say is unaffordable but to be honest having the province severely overreliant on the UK treasury which will be potentially skint because of Brexit isnt any better.

Some have said that a border down the Irish Sea is worse but lets be clear, a sea border is a natural border and much easier to enforce as the ports and airports would be the primary locations for goods invound and outbound than the Land border which is porous, has hundreds of crossing points and is a magnet for trouble which is why theres so many railing against it. The 2nd thing about the sea border is that it would be primarily checks on incoming goods not necessarily outbound. Theres also been little information as to how a Sea border would be worse exactly where as its been very detailed on how detrimental the Land border would be.

Look, a hard border blocks trade. Trade with the rest of the UK is more important to Northern Ireland than trade with the EU. That is an economic reality.

NI will suffer potential depression levels whether the hard border is with the rest of the UK or with the EU. What you and many others haven't thought of is that if the hard border is down the Irish Sea and the resultant depression hits them, who will they blame? The Southern government.

A hard border down the Irish Sea is no solution, and those who think it is are romantic dreamers who are blinkered by the thought of a united Ireland.

Tell me how

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How does a hard border help the Republic ?

I don't think he is suggesting that it would help the Republic but that it would be better for Northern Irish people than one in the Irish sea.

Kermit.de.frog

British government sources suggesting deal on the political declaration between UK/EU might not be ready by Sunday.

This according to Sky

"We can have another summit the following week if necessary," one senior government figure said.

These people think European leaders are going to clear their diaries for another summit with Britain the following week because they might not be ready.

Capt'n Midnight

blanch152 wrote: »

NI trade with the rest of the UK is greater than their trade with the EU.

NI depends on the UK exchequer for survival, the Irish exchequer can't afford that, and the EU won't afford that.

Separation from the rest of the UK by way of a hard border down the Irish Sea is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland.

It is a better outcome for the South than a hard border on the island, but the interests of the two parts of the island do diverge when we get down to the second-last and last option.

For all of the island, the UK remaining in the EU is by far the best option, with membership of the CU and SM a distant second, and all other options nowhere, including the two discussed above.

There's already checks on the ferries. And besides the reality of the situation is that something like 60% of goods consignments moving from the UK to Northern Ireland, and vice versa, go through Dublin.

Here's an old joke :
Q. What the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer ?
A. Mechanical engineers build weapons while civil engineers build targets.

A hard border will mean there's be hundreds of targets. With real people inside them.

The British Army didn't keep it totally safe back in the day and there's a lot less squadies than there used to be.

How does a hard border help the Republic ?

Tell me how

Gbear wrote: »

An interview between James O'Brien and Carole Cadwalladr on LBC, covering the ongoing farce of the BBC's coverage of Brexit and the corruption at the heart of the Leave campaign, and how it intersects with the neo-fascist, corporatist entities working on both sides of the Atlantic and likely in the Kremlin.

Just some background, she phoned Nigel Farage on his LBC show at the weekend and pretended to be a true blue Tory (Sarah from Weybridge in Surrey) to get on the air. When she disclosed who she was, Farage called her a ranting lunatic and hung up on her before she could ask any questions.

She posted on Twitter later about it and James said he'd have her on to talk about what she would have asked him hence the conversation linked above.

prawnsambo

sink wrote: »

I don't think that is true.

The main problem with the technological solutions or the so called 'maximum facilitation' for North-South trade is that they either require a) huge levels of trust or b) infrastructure.

Trust between the EU and the UK has been seriously eroded due to the repeated stated aspirations of the main brexit proponents to undercut the EU market in ways the EU would see as anti-competitive. This includes both aspirations of de-regulation from the right of the political spectrum and also for state subsidisation from the left of the political spectrum.

Never mind what they're saying now. The UK owe the EU over £2.6 billion in uncollected tariffs on goods imported from China. That worked out well on a trust basis.

RobMc59

sink wrote: »

I don't think that is true.

The main problem with the technological solutions or the so called 'maximum facilitation' for North-South trade is that they either require a) huge levels of trust or b) infrastructure.

Trust between the EU and the UK has been seriously eroded due to the repeated stated aspirations of the main brexit proponents to undercut the EU market in ways the EU would see as anti-competitive. This includes both aspirations of de-regulation from the right of the political spectrum and also for state subsidisation from the left of the political spectrum.

With a lack of trust in UK customs and regulatory controls the only solutions that could properly enforce EU customs and regulatory controls are ones which include infrastructure at the border. Infrastructure of any sort dividing the north from the south is obviously a huge problem for political and/or security concerns.

However when it comes to east-west trade between NI and GB, the concern with regards to infrastructure is no longer as valid. Significant infrastructure already exists at the ports for sanitary and phyto-sanitary inspection. Expanding this infrastructure to include controls for all trade while taking advantage of the maximum facilitation solutions already outlined for north-south trade could lead to a minimum of disruption.

But in the end the amount of disruption to any and all trade in any direction is directly proportional to how divergent the UK customs and regulatory regime is from the EU.

How is it anti competitive to undercut the EU?Surely it is anti competitive for a large cartel to set prices and tariffs ,as the energy companies in the UK have done in the past.

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Credit where credit is due, an ambitious post-Brexit FTA is under discussion - for Jersey!

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2018/11/19/jersey-granted-permission-to-negotiate-trade-deal-with-uae/

Wealth funds and tax avoidance

Not sure what else Jersey offers

Gbear

An interview between James O'Brien and Carole Cadwalladr on LBC, covering the ongoing farce of the BBC's coverage of Brexit and the corruption at the heart of the Leave campaign, and how it intersects with the neo-fascist, corporatist entities working on both sides of the Atlantic and likely in the Kremlin.

If the name isn't familiar, Cadwalladr helped uncover evidence that is currently being investigated by the National Crime Agency in the UK, of Arron Banks, one of the large backers of Leave, and the shady sources of the money he used to do it.

More recently, we have seen Banks given a softball interview on Andrew Marr, and Andrew Neil, supposedly one of the foremost interviewers at the BBC, dismissing her as a "crazy cat woman".

I can only hope that when the dust settles, the likes of Cadwalladr will be looked at in the same sort of light as Woodward and Bernstein.

An Ciarraioch

Credit where credit is due, an ambitious post-Brexit FTA is under discussion - for Jersey!

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2018/11/19/jersey-granted-permission-to-negotiate-trade-deal-with-uae/

sink

blanch152 wrote: »

NI trade with the rest of the UK is greater than their trade with the EU.

NI depends on the UK exchequer for survival, the Irish exchequer can't afford that, and the EU won't afford that.

Separation from the rest of the UK by way of a hard border down the Irish Sea is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland.

It is a better outcome for the South than a hard border on the island, but the interests of the two parts of the island do diverge when we get down to the second-last and last option.

For all of the island, the UK remaining in the EU is by far the best option, with membership of the CU and SM a distant second, and all other options nowhere, including the two discussed above.

I don't think that is true.

The main problem with the technological solutions or the so called 'maximum facilitation' for North-South trade is that they either require a) huge levels of trust or b) infrastructure.

Trust between the EU and the UK has been seriously eroded due to the repeated stated aspirations of the main brexit proponents to undercut the EU market in ways the EU would see as anti-competitive. This includes both aspirations of de-regulation from the right of the political spectrum and also for state subsidisation from the left of the political spectrum.

With a lack of trust in UK customs and regulatory controls the only solutions that could properly enforce EU customs and regulatory controls are ones which include infrastructure at the border. Infrastructure of any sort dividing the north from the south is obviously a huge problem for political and/or security concerns.

However when it comes to east-west trade between NI and GB, the concern with regards to infrastructure is no longer as valid. Significant infrastructure already exists at the ports for sanitary and phyto-sanitary inspection. Expanding this infrastructure to include controls for all trade while taking advantage of the maximum facilitation solutions already outlined for north-south trade could lead to a minimum of disruption.

But in the end the amount of disruption to any and all trade in any direction is directly proportional to how divergent the UK customs and regulatory regime is from the EU.

Infini

blanch152 wrote: »

NI trade with the rest of the UK is greater than their trade with the EU.

NI depends on the UK exchequer for survival, the Irish exchequer can't afford that, and the EU won't afford that.

Separation from the rest of the UK by way of a hard border down the Irish Sea is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland.

It is a better outcome for the South than a hard border on the island, but the interests of the two parts of the island do diverge when we get down to the second-last and last option.

For all of the island, the UK remaining in the EU is by far the best option, with membership of the CU and SM a distant second, and all other options nowhere, including the two discussed above.

The problem though is that NI will suffer potential DEPRESSION level conditions as a result of a hard brexit and lack of any investment. On top of that NI people say is unaffordable but to be honest having the province severely overreliant on the UK treasury which will be potentially skint because of Brexit isnt any better.

Some have said that a border down the Irish Sea is worse but lets be clear, a sea border is a natural border and much easier to enforce as the ports and airports would be the primary locations for goods invound and outbound than the Land border which is porous, has hundreds of crossing points and is a magnet for trouble which is why theres so many railing against it. The 2nd thing about the sea border is that it would be primarily checks on incoming goods not necessarily outbound. Theres also been little information as to how a Sea border would be worse exactly where as its been very detailed on how detrimental the Land border would be.

BonnieSituation

Mortelaro wrote: »

It's gas,that's exactly the way Sammy Wilson replies when he hears things he doesn't like...

You're my new favourite.

Thargor

blanch152 wrote: »

A government could be formed any time if Sinn Fein withdrew their red lines.

So all they have to do is give up on the Irish language, forget about investigating half a billion p1ssed away on incompetence/corruption and then swear an oath of allegiance to the queen of England and they'll be able to form a government? Genius! Have you thought about writing to them with your fresh ideas?

Mortelaro

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's absolutely none of those things. But okie doke.

It's gas,that's exactly the way Sammy Wilson replies when he hears things he doesn't like...

Strazdas

Tell me how wrote: »

ERG Groups failure to get 48 letters and the reaction to DUP approach in the North must be playing in to Theresa's hands in a big way.
Even the EU getting the other 27 countries to accept the agreement before she goes to Brussels tomorrow helps her as she can genuinely point to the EU not being willing to rework what is on the table at this point.

Her whips must be burning the ears of everyone on these points enforcing the message that this is it.

It's almost a surprise how isolated the ERG are : but as Peter Foster points out in that Twitter thread above, they have no actual plan for Brexit and are being seriously found out at last.

robindch

dresden8 wrote: »

Korma is a bitch.

Has Korma run over some dogma?

blanch152

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Can you please explain how a watery border would be worse than one separating the Republic from NI?

NI trade with the rest of the UK is greater than their trade with the EU.

NI depends on the UK exchequer for survival, the Irish exchequer can't afford that, and the EU won't afford that.

Separation from the rest of the UK by way of a hard border down the Irish Sea is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland.

It is a better outcome for the South than a hard border on the island, but the interests of the two parts of the island do diverge when we get down to the second-last and last option.

For all of the island, the UK remaining in the EU is by far the best option, with membership of the CU and SM a distant second, and all other options nowhere, including the two discussed above.

Tell me how

Story on BBC website about German company Schaeffler announcing closure of two plants in Wales with the company suggesting that the reasons included "uncertainty surrounding Brexit".

BBC Wales

On the story, there is a video of interviews with 3 workers. Two of the workers seemed to imply it was for other reasons and not Brexit related .

The area voted to leave with 56% in the referendum.

Tell me how

ERG Groups failure to get 48 letters and the reaction to DUP approach in the North must be playing in to Theresa's hands in a big way.
Even the EU getting the other 27 countries to accept the agreement before she goes to Brussels tomorrow helps her as she can genuinely point to the EU not being willing to rework what is on the table at this point.

Her whips must be burning the ears of everyone on these points enforcing the message that this is it.