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

10000maniacs

prawnsambo wrote: »

I've had discussions with brexiters on twitter. Not just here. And I've yet to hear anything from them that isn't cobbled together rubbish from brexit central, the tabloid press or just plain fantasy.

Like the current mot du jour: 'WTO rules'. When you point out that yes, Britain is a member of the WTO, but no, they haven't an agreed schedule of tariffs and quotas, because countries (including their erstwhile colonies) don't want their EU quotas pro-rata handed over to the UK, they go silent. Or that the WTO is 163 countries, all with a veto, who would make negotiating with the EU look like a walk in the park.

Just to confirm, When the UK leaves on March 31st, all trade deals/tariffs that they had with third WTO countries will have to be re-negotiated on a bi-lateral basis. The old trade deals they had with those countries were via block EU agreements with these countries and will be null and void after they leave.
When the Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg keep saying we already have trade deals with WTO third countries, this is not factually correct. Or can somebody correct me if I am wrong?

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

Honestly, what serious discussions can be had when Brexit will deliver this.

But this isn't news, it is right in line with pre-referendum analysis provided by the UK government. We have know this for years now.

The reason the leavers are cross with May is not because they will have to pay for her deal, when challenged they say that brexit is worth every penny: freedom, sovereignty, independence are worth the cost.

They are cross because they don't get what they think they want - free trade on rubbish terms with the whole world.

Professor Moriarty

The Norway model is still being mooted despite the fact that it's a non-runner in the short term Similarly, extending Article 50 is also being mooted with complete disregard for the EU's red lines. As usual, the discussion is in the context of what's best for Britain and then we'll tell the EU what's going to happen. Apparently, Brussels is understandably astonished. I really like this response from one official: "There is just very little to talk about anymore – you could change the font.”

Water John

They are not saying a Norway Deal. What they are saying is a Deal similar to Norway but remaining in the CU. Remaining in the CU is a theme running through a few options suggested. This is coming both from Boles and Corbyn.
The Times had it today that the EU would consider a Deal where UK stayed in the CU. If such were to be discussed, IWT there would be little issue with extending Art 50.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

They are not saying a Norway Deal. What they are saying is a Deal similar to Norway but remaining in the CU. Remaining in the CU is a theme running through a few options suggested. This is coming both from Boles and Corbyn.
The Times had it today that the EU would consider a Deal where UK stayed in the CU. If such were to be discussed, IWT there would be little issue with extending Art 50.

That's the Norway+. But in order to get a Norway+, you must first agree Norway. That's impossible before March so an extension is required. May has ruled that out. Also, Norway isn't acceptable to May as her red line is freedom of movement of people. Norway+ means freedom of movement of goods, capital, services and people plus a customs union. If I was a true Brexiteer, this would be my version of Hell.

Water John

If May doesn't get her Deal through on Dec11th, it is no longer for her to say, but Parliament. She keeps ruling this and that out, but all she is doing is spoofing to try and get her Deal through, or at least have a respectable vote.

First Up

10000maniacs wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

I've had discussions with brexiters on twitter. Not just here. And I've yet to hear anything from them that isn't cobbled together rubbish from brexit central, the tabloid press or just plain fantasy.

Like the current mot du jour: 'WTO rules'. When you point out that yes, Britain is a member of the WTO, but no, they haven't an agreed schedule of tariffs and quotas, because countries (including their erstwhile colonies) don't want their EU quotas pro-rata handed over to the UK, they go silent. Or that the WTO is 163 countries, all with a veto, who would make negotiating with the EU look like a walk in the park.

Just to confirm, When the UK leaves on March 31st, all trade deals/tariffs that they had with third WTO countries will have to be re-negotiated on a bi-lateral basis. The old trade deals they had with those countries were via block EU agreements with these countries and will be null and void after they leave.
When the Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg keep saying we already have trade deals with WTO third countries, this is not factually correct. Or can somebody correct me if I am wrong?

You are correct. The UK has to replace all the terms of trade that it enjoyed as part of the EU with new bilateral arrangements. Unless and until it does so, WTO terms will apply.

There are two major implications;

1 - It will need exceptionally good negotiators to secure trade terms that are even remotely as good as those it enjoyed as an EU member because they will have about 10% of the negotiating power.

2 - They don't have any negotiators because the last time the UK needed to negotiate trade terms with anyone was in 1972.

LuckyLloyd

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Norway model is still being mooted despite the fact that it's a non-runner in the short term Similarly, extending Article 50 is also being mooted with complete disregard for the EU's red lines. As usual, the discussion is in the context of what's best for Britain and then we'll tell the EU what's going to happen. Apparently, Brussels is understandably astonished. I really like this response from one official: "There is just very little to talk about anymore – you could change the font.”

In that vein, the fact that amendments to the bill are being allowed is astonishingly blinkered and tone deaf. 'But parliament is sovereign' - so what, an amendment implies more negotiation and that simply isn't possible. The continued irrelevant internal politicking and spitballing about how the process should be handled is eye watering in its ignorance. So many opinion pieces saying 'this is how the process should be handled' that are impossible given the late stage we are at and the realities of finalising highly nuanced and complex legal arrangements with a large negotiating block with 27 separate components.

The recent whining about 'the Brits aren't been given a fair shake in this thread because 800 years' is also ignorant of this. Maybe Folkstonian is right, and Britain is still a great country and it is merely the politicians who are the issue. Maybe Question Time is completely unrepresentative of British society and the media is essentially screaming into the abyss with no actual readership or consumption of poisonous ideas. But I really don't buy that. Does anyone here?

flatty

Water John wrote: »

If May doesn't get her Deal through on Dec11th, it is no longer for her to say, but Parliament. She keeps ruling this and that out, but all she is doing is spoofing to try and get her Deal through, or at least have a respectable vote.

This is correct, May has neither the wit nor the flexibility to change now. She has seen a door and is running full tilt at it, teeth gritted, head down and blinkers on. Any extension of a50 and requests to soften the deal still further will not come from her, but either from parliament, or a new govt. She will do everything and anything to keep this from happening. She wants to be on the bridge when brexit happens. She sees it as her place in history cemented. She doesn't really care about the consequences as she genuinely hasn't the intellect to see and assess them, and in any case, they won't affect her in the slightest.
She sees no irony or hypocrisy in appealing via the BBC and the other govt mouthpieces to the public for support, whilst steadfastly refusing to countenance giving them a vote.
Meanwhile, a trillion of investment has already fled.

[Deleted User]

BBC radio Ulster TalkBack is some craic. It's all clearly an orange Vs green issue now and what's good for the northern economy doesn't matter.

* It needs to be broadcast nationwide :-)

RobMc59

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Well said. I'd have always been a West Brit, I lived there for five years, made plenty of English friends and loved it.

There is no escaping the fact that the UK's decision to leave the EU has the potential to cause an awful lot of damage to this country and island, set back the Peace Process and Anglo-Irish relations by decades, so it's no wonder people in this country are quite aggrieved about it.

I want us as a country to be good friends and neighbours with the UK (unlike the Brexiteers, I don't want to go back to the past), and not to have a chip on our shoulder. That is difficult with the attitude of the Tories and the fact that the only voice being heard about NI in London is the DUP's. This is a party who have less than 30% of the vote in NI, and who do not represent the views of the majority in the North (which voted to Remain in the EU let's not forget). True friendship and mutual respect requires acknowledging that we are an independent country on an equal footing with the UK. We do not exist to be subservient to whatever daft ideas the Tories wish to implement.

I agree with almost all you say.I disagree with your suggestion that the brexiteers want to go back to the past before the UK and Ireland were good friends-no one wants to go back to the dark days.I have said it before I have very close links with Ireland and can see the wisdom of a lot of what is said on here-but perhaps seeing it from a British point of view as well is an advantage.There are always two sides to every story-Although some of the brexiteers words and actions have been awful, Britain isn't as bad as it's painted by some on here.

Professor Moriarty

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

BBC radio Ulster TalkBack is some craic. It's all clearly an orange Vs green issue now and what's good for the northern economy doesn't matter.

* It needs to be broadcast nationwide :-)

I'd find that too depressing.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree with almost all you say.I disagree with your suggestion that the brexiteers want to go back to the past before the UK and Ireland were good friends-no one wants to go back to the dark days.I have said it before I have very close links with Ireland and can see the wisdom of a lot of what is said on here-but perhaps seeing it from a British point of view as well is an advantage.There are always two sides to every story-Although some of the brexiteers words and actions have been awful, Britain isn't as bad as it's painted by some on here.

You have spent the last 4-5 days saying 'some on here' 'Views on here' I think there was an echo chamber or two thrown into the mix.

As has been pointed out before. This is an Irish form and will have an Irish viewpoint and perspective on how Brexit will impact Ireland specifically.

You dont speak for the british point of view, but your politicians do. They are elected to speak on your behalf. Now you either like it or loath it but the Polticians that were voted in by British people are speaking with a laissez faireF attitude to Ireland as if it didnt exist. Some i would garner wish it didnt at all.

So whilst there might be 2 sides to every story . Your own government and the ministers in it - the highest power in the land have 1 side of the story and its very much Anti Ireland.

So im tired of the spouty stuff about this thread being an echo chamber. We call it as we see it in this Country. If you live here you would know that about Irish people.

lawred2

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

BBC radio Ulster TalkBack is some craic. It's all clearly an orange Vs green issue now and what's good for the northern economy doesn't matter.

* It needs to be broadcast nationwide :-)

but it's not a green vs orange issue for those business owning Ulster Unionists...

it is only ever the crazies that choose to ring into talk radio - it has always been thus

Strazdas

On the 'Brit bashing' theme, the Brexiteers are probably only a minority of the British people at this stage. Most Irish people are well able to separate them out from the rest of the British population and realise they are not a majority.

It's hard for them (the Brexiteers) to get a fair hearing here of course. They mostly seem completely indifferent to Ireland whilst quite a few among their ranks are openly hostile towards the country.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree with almost all you say.I disagree with your suggestion that the brexiteers want to go back to the past before the UK and Ireland were good friends-no one wants to go back to the dark days.I have said it before I have very close links with Ireland and can see the wisdom of a lot of what is said on here-but perhaps seeing it from a British point of view as well is an advantage.There are always two sides to every story-Although some of the brexiteers words and actions have been awful, Britain isn't as bad as it's painted by some on here.

I do think that many posters have tried to see things from the UK POV. It is known that it is better negotiation to be able to see the other sides POV to understand it.

But the UK POV seems to consist almost entirely of "EU is terrible, we want out freedom back", but when questioned people either have no specifics or trot out some previously debunked headline.

So the exasperation is down to the fact that most of the arguments used for Brexit have been debunked. As an example, James O'Brien had a caller on about foreigners. When JO'B pointed out his position was based on lies and misinformation he agreed but said he still wanted Brexit.

What sort of POV is that? So the Brexit POV seems to be all about little England (it clearly cares little for Scotland or NI).

It has nothing to do with being Anti-UK, it has to do with being anti people creating problems for us based on simply not caring about anyone but themselvs

ancapailldorcha

In fairness, I do cringe quite a bit when I see people here thinking that the British want Empire 2.0 or something similar. I think there is a sizeable amount of older people who, mainly due to technology and increased diversity find modern society harder to relate to and engage with than the elderly of the time when they were young.

Nostalgia is a powerful force and has been successfully tapped by insidious and mysterious forces with agendas which are inimical to the interests of the working classes of this country.

judeboy101

Tusk just said there will be no renegotiating of WA, but specifically didnt include future relationship statement in that comment.

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

Tusk just said there will be no renegotiating of WA, but specifically didnt include future relationship statement in that comment.

Of course he didn't the future relationship is still to be negotiated. I'm confused as too your point?

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

I disagree with your suggestion that the brexiteers want to go back to the past before the UK and Ireland were good friends-no one wants to go back to the dark days.

Ah, but you see that depends on what you consider "dark days" and this is where both the Brexiteers and the British population in general have a sanitised/inaccurate version of our shared history. To be very simplistic about it, from an Irish point of view, for 800 years before the GFA, every day was a "dark day".

What changed things for the better was the GFA, hence Ireland's absolute determination not to allow that to be compromised in any way. Even today, Brexiteers cannot get their heads around the notion that "we will fight them on the beaches ... :rolleyes:" before we let a bunch of foreigners divide our island once again.

Lacking meaningful military might, we used our (considerable) soft power on the international stage to get the EU on our side, and since last December, the DUP-UKIP-Tory party has struggled to cope with this reality of international politics in the post-Empire era. Our pens are mightier than your swords.

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are always two sides to every story-Although some of the brexiteers words and actions have been awful, Britain isn't as bad as it's painted by some on here.

We are on the outside looking it, and we all have different views of what constitutes British society today. Depending on whether - and where - we've lived and/or worked in Britain and/or married into British families and/or kept abreast of developments, some of us can see things more clearly than those immersed in the day-to-day banalities of life.

For my part, the "Brit bashing" seen on this thread is nothing compared to what my English friends and work colleagues (all Remainers) say about their Brexiteer neighbours ... or family members.

judeboy101

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Of course he didn't the future relationship is still to be negotiated. I'm confused as too your point?

This one https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/758556/22_November_Draft_Political_Declaration_setting_out_the_framework_for_the_future_relationship_between_the_EU_and_the_UK__agreed_at_negotiators__level_and_agreed_in_principle_at_political_level__subject_to_endorsement_by_Leaders.pdf

An Ciarraioch

judeboy101 wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Of course he didn't the future relationship is still to be negotiated. I'm confused as too your point?

This one https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/758556/22_November_Draft_Political_Declaration_setting_out_the_framework_for_the_future_relationship_between_the_EU_and_the_UK__agreed_at_negotiators__level_and_agreed_in_principle_at_political_level__subject_to_endorsement_by_Leaders.pdf

Only the WA has legal effect.

judeboy101

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Only the WA has legal effect.

No parliament can enact laws that bind a subsequent parliament.

Zubeneschamali

judeboy101 wrote: »

No parliament can enact laws that bind a subsequent parliament.

Yes, and the WA is about what this parliament does.

Pay up, treat EU citizens in the UK a certain way and refrain from anything that imposes a hard border.

It is the Future Relationship (yet to be negotiated, but the subject of 26 pages of waffle which is causing ructions in the UK at the moment) which is in the, well, future.

irishash

May has ruled out having another referendum, saying the same as a lot of other tories - Undemocratic, will of the people, brexit means brexit........yada, yada, yada.

But when it comes to the vote on the WA by the house of commons, wont rule out a second vote - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46394431

Just another example of why they don't care a bit about democracy and only about their own agendas.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

No parliament can enact laws that bind a subsequent parliament.

No parliament can enact laws that bind even itself. Whatever they enact today, they can enact the complete opposite tomorrow.

And this isn't unique to Westminster; it's equally true of the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas can be bound by the people, via a provision inserted into the Constitution, but it's not bound by itself. Anything it enacts today it can un-enact tomorrow.

But so what? While as a matter of UK law parliament may have the right to smash any treaty that the UK enters into, as a matter of international law the UK will be in breach of its treaty obligations if it does that, and will be exposed to various sanctions under international law, plus loss of credibility, reputation, status and bargaining power. All of which are very good reasons why, despite the fact that UK law give Parliament the power to cause the UK to breach its treaty obligations, Parliament very rarely exercises that power.

So, if Parliament ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement and it enters into force, the fact that Parliament has the power to breach the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't in practice mean a great deal. And if, as the Political Declaration envisages, the UK and the EU negotiate a future relationship agreement and that enters into force, same goes.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

You have spent the last 4-5 days saying 'some on here' 'Views on here' I think there was an echo chamber or two thrown into the mix.

As has been pointed out before. This is an Irish form and will have an Irish viewpoint and perspective on how Brexit will impact Ireland specifically.

You dont speak for the british point of view, but your politicians do. They are elected to speak on your behalf. Now you either like it or loath it but the Polticians that were voted in by British people are speaking with a laissez faireF attitude to Ireland as if it didnt exist. Some i would garner wish it didnt at all.

So whilst there might be 2 sides to every story . Your own government and the ministers in it - the highest power in the land have 1 side of the story and its very much Anti Ireland.

So im tired of the spouty stuff about this thread being an echo chamber. We call it as we see it in this Country. If you live here you would know that about Irish people.

I've had differences of opinion with other posters but I've also learned a few things from this forum-some UK news channels(BBC especially)and newspapers are blatantly biased-I've also learned the UK political system has serious faults.So I think it's helped broaden my horizons and see other points of view and opinions..can you say the same in your intransigence and prejudices ?

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

No parliament can enact laws that bind a subsequent parliament.

Awh I understand now. Thinly veiled we are going to be stabbed in the back again.

UsedToWait

RobMc59 wrote: »

.can you say the same in your intransigence and prejudices ?

Are you accusing
- the poster
- this forum
- Irish people in general
of the above?

From your posts recently, it's hard to tell.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

I've had differences of opinion with other posters but I've also learned a few things from this forum-some UK news channels(BBC especially)and newspapers are blatantly biased-I've also learned the UK political system has serious faults.So I think it's helped broaden my horizons and see other points of view and opinions..can you say the same in your intransigence and prejudices ?

Which ones are those specifically?

Can you point them out?

Ive lived abroad and travelled to over 60 Countries. So what specifically are my prejudices? detail them.

Or is this you continuing in the theme of the 'poor us' 'treat us with more respect' theme that you feel you are not getting on the thread.

Ive read your posts and ive read the responses to them. The notion that there isnt Balance on this thread is in a nutshell Rubbish!.

And its you that continues the theme that is not balanced with zero to back it up. I dont know why you do it buy you do, daily.